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 God is the most genuine and imperishable good

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The predicate 'good' is properly applied only to agents whose actions can be evaluated against needs or interests of sentient beings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.God, as traditionally conceived as self-sufficient and without lack, has no needs or interests that actions could satisfy or frustrate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore God cannot coherently be the referent of 'good' without equivocating on the term's meaning, as Spinoza argued in the Ethics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Everlastingness and unchangeability are necessary conditions for imperishability but not sufficient conditions for genuine goodness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A timeless, unchangeable entity lacks the responsiveness to contingent suffering that grounds our attribution of goodness to persons, as J.N. Findlay contended.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supporting argument conflates ontological permanence with axiological supremacy, committing a category error identified in Moore's open-question argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.True good must be everlasting, safe, and unchangeable
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Only God possesses all requisites of being everlasting, safe, and unchangeable
      ?

      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.