Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Descartes and Leibniz argued that the ontological argument is sound conditional on the prior demonstration that the concept of a supremely perfect being is internally consistent.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Internal consistency of a concept does not establish that the concept refers to anything real in the actual world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Leibniz never actually completed a rigorous consistency proof for 'supremely perfect being,' leaving the condition unmet.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even if consistency is necessary, it may be insufficient—existence requires more than logical coherence of an idea.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Logical arguments require consistent concepts; an incoherent concept cannot ground valid deductive reasoning about existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Descartes and Leibniz showed that perfection-concepts require demonstration of non-contradiction before ontological proof proceeds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without consistency verification, one risks deriving existence from pseudo-concepts, as with Kant's problematic 100 thalers example.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.