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 does not exist. — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Miracles do not take place.

    God does not exist.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.It is possible that God does not exist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.God is not a contingent being, i.e., either it is not possible that God exists, or it is necessary that God exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hence it is not possible that God exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The argument's P2 illicitly assumes God is not contingent without justification, begging the question against open theism and classical theism alike.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If necessary existence is coherent (as Plantinga argues via possible worlds semantics), then P1's possibility claim entails God's necessity, not impossibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Modal logic (S5) dictates that if it is possible that a necessary being exists, then that being exists in all possible worlds, inverting the argument's conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The cosmological argument (Leibniz, Aquinas) establishes that contingent existence requires a sufficient reason, which terminates in a necessary being identifiable with God.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The existence of finely tuned physical constants (the teleological argument, cf. Swinburne's 'The Existence of God') renders God's existence more probable than the denial thereof.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Anselm's ontological insight, rehabilitated by Plantinga, shows that denying God's existence entails denying the coherence of maximal greatness, which is itself conceivable.
      ?

      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

    1 topic

    Against a future action of God1 linked

    Related

    Anselm's ontological insight, rehabilitated by Plantinga, shows that denying God...God is not a contingent being, i.e., either it is not possible that God exists, ...Hence it is not possible that God exists.If God does not exist, then miracles (understood as events involving divine agen...
    +7 moreShow less
    If necessary existence is coherent (as Plantinga argues via possible worlds sema...It is possible that God does not exist.Miracles do not take place.Modal logic (S5) dictates that if it is possible that a necessary being exists, ...The argument's P2 illicitly assumes God is not contingent without justification,...The cosmological argument (Leibniz, Aquinas) establishes that contingent existen...The existence of finely tuned physical constants (the teleological argument, cf....

    Similar

    It is possible that God does not exist.93%God exists.90%Hence it is not possible that God exists.90%God must exist.89%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: ontological-arguments
    View source passageHide passage
    (3) It is possible that God does not exist. God is not a contingent being, i.e., either it is not possible that God exists, or it is necessary that God exists. Hence it is not possible that God exists. Hence God does not exist.
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The extracted argument faithfully represents the reasoning in the source passage: from premises (1) and (2), it follows that it is not possible that God exists (premise 3), and from the impossibility of God's existence, it follows that God does not exist.

    Confidence: The argument is explicitly laid out in the text as a formal chain of reasoning.

    Details

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