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's absolute necessity does not invoke the ontological argument.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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