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
    God cannot serve as the locus of the inference for God's ... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

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

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.In Nyāya epistemology, the pakṣa (locus) must be a known particular whose existence is established prior to the inference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Udayana's own Nyāyakusumāñjali concedes God is not perceptually available, making God an unknown particular unfit as pakṣa.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An inference whose conclusion is the existence of its own locus is viciously circular, as Gaṅgeśa's vyāpti analysis of valid hetu confirms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dignāga's pramāṇa theory holds that the locus of inference must be independently accessible to establish sādhya-dharmin identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If God's existence is the very sādhya being proved, no independent access to God as dharmin is possible without presupposing the conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A sound inference requires the reason property to be uncontroversially present in the locus
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.God's very existence is controversial
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the reason property cannot be uncontroversially present in God as locus
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Connections

    2 topics

    Against an attribute of God2 linkedAgainst an aspect of God1 linked

    Related

    A sound inference requires the reason property to be uncontroversially present i...An inference whose conclusion is the existence of its own locus is viciously cir...Dignāga's pramāṇa theory holds that the locus of inference must be independently...God's very existence is controversial
    +4 moreShow less
    If God's existence is the very sādhya being proved, no independent access to God...In Nyāya epistemology, the pakṣa (locus) must be a known particular whose existe...Therefore the reason property cannot be uncontroversially present in God as locu...Udayana's own Nyāyakusumāñjali concedes God is not perceptually available, makin...

    Similar

    Dyads are a suitable locus for the inference to God's existence90%'Everything in the world' cannot serve as the locus of the inference f...89%Knowledge of God's existence is not possible through theoretical means81%Theism is very probably false, even when the evidence for God's existe...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: early-modern-india
    View source passageHide passage
    Comments: (1) Why does The Manual of Reason take dyads to be the locus of the inference? This is, in fact, a clever move. Obviously, we cannot take God to be the locus (e.g. God exists, because…), for then the first criterion on a sound inference will not be met—the reason property, whatever it is, cannot be uncontroversially present in a locus whose very existence is controversial. We can’t take the locus to be “everything in the world”, for many such things are not effects (e.g. atoms, space)
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit