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's absolute necessity does not invoke the ontological ... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    God's absolute necessity does not invoke the ontological argument.

    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.By modal Axiom S5, if it is possible that a necessary being exists, it necessarily exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.But this gives no reason to think that the nature in question is genuinely possible, and not merely logically consistent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant argued that 'necessary existence' is not a coherent predicate, making any route to absolute necessity conceptually suspect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If absolute necessity is grounded in God's nature or essence, then the inference from essence to existence replicates the ontological argument's core move.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Plantinga's modal ontological argument shows that S5-based necessity and conceptual necessity collapse into the same inferential structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Van Inwagen argues that no being's existence can be metaphysically necessary, since existence is never logically compelled by any description.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If God's necessity is stipulated rather than demonstrated, O'Connor's claim merely defers rather than dissolves the ontological argument's epistemic burden.
      ?

      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

    Related

    But this gives no reason to think that the nature in question is genuinely possi...By modal Axiom S5, if it is possible that a necessary being exists, it necessari...If God's necessity is stipulated rather than demonstrated, O'Connor's claim mere...If absolute necessity is grounded in God's nature or essence, then the inference...
    +3 moreShow less
    Kant argued that 'necessary existence' is not a coherent predicate, making any r...Plantinga's modal ontological argument shows that S5-based necessity and concept...Van Inwagen argues that no being's existence can be metaphysically necessary, si...

    Similar

    So understood, the cosmological argument does not rely on logical nece...84%The ontological argument's claim that God necessarily exists cannot be...82%The ontological argument for God's existence is unsound.81%There is no clearly articulated full set of premises for a 'Hegelian' ...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted3/3 agreementValid
    SEP: cosmological-argument
    O'Connor (2008: 71)
    View source passageHide passage
    Although Aquinas was quick to make the identification between God and the first mover or first cause (growing out of his contention that philosophy is the handmaiden of theology, such that in philosophy faith seeks understanding, not confirmation), such identification seems to go beyond the causal reasoning that informs the argument (although one can argue that it is consistent with the larger picture of God and his properties that Aquinas paints in his Summae). Some (Rasmussen, O’Connor, Koons) have plowed ahead in developing this stage 2 process by showing how and what properties—simplicity,...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The passage explicitly attributes this argument to O'Connor, who agrees with the S5 modal point (premise 1) but denies it invokes the ontological argument precisely because it "gives no reason to think that the nature in question is genuinely possible, and not merely logically consistent" (premise 2), thereby supporting the conclusion that God's absolute necessity does not invoke the ontological argument.

    Confidence: Moderate confidence; the text also raises a worry about this move.

    Details

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