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 'Everything in the world' cannot serve as the locus of the inference for God's existence

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The Manual of Reason's desired reason property is being an effect
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Many things in the world (e.g. atoms, space) are not effects
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the reason property would not be unequivocally present in 'everything in the world' as locus
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.In Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika ontology, eternal entities like ākāśa (space) and paramāṇus (atoms) are explicitly classified as anitya or nitya, not as kāryas (effects).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An inference requires the hetu (reason) to be vyāpaka—universally present in the pakṣa (locus)—so even one counter-instance invalidates the inferential schema.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If eternal, uncreated entities are genuine constituents of 'everything in the world,' the locus contains both effects and non-effects, destroying the required vyāpti (pervasion).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dignāga's logic, influential across Indian philosophical schools, holds that a valid hetu must satisfy pakṣadharmatā: the reason must genuinely characterize the entire proposed locus without exception.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kumārila Bhaṭṭa's Mīmāṃsā critique of Nyāya theology argued that invoking 'the world' as a unified inferential locus commits the fallacy of anaikāntika, since the locus is not homogeneous with respect to the reason property.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A locus that is heterogeneous with respect to the hetu produces an inconclusive (anaikāntika) inference, rendering any theistic conclusion drawn from it epistemically unwarranted.
      ?

      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.