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 Every contingent truth has a sufficient reason

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quantum mechanics provides empirical evidence that some events (radioactive decay) are genuinely probabilistic with no sufficient determining reason.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a well-confirmed physical theory posits irreducibly probabilistic events, the PSR cannot be a necessary truth about all contingent facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A principle that fails for physical contingencies cannot serve as a universal claim about every contingent truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume demonstrated that the inference from 'every event we have examined has a cause' to 'every event has a cause' is an illegitimate ampliative leap.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Leibniz's move from conceptual containment to the existence of an actual sufficient reason conflates logical relations between concepts with real causal-explanatory relations in the world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Positing infinite conceptual containment chains inaccessible to finite minds renders the PSR empirically vacuous and unfalsifiable, stripping it of genuine explanatory force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A sufficient reason exists when the concept of the predicate is contained in the concept of the subject
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.For every true contingent proposition, such a conceptual containment relation holds even if unreachable in finite steps
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.It is sufficient for a sufficient reason that such a conceptual connection exists, even if undiscoverable by finite minds
      ?

      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.