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 Hume's Dialogues and the 'Anselmian gap' objection (van Inwagen 1994) establish that conceivability of necessary existence does not entail its genuine metaphysical possibility.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Conceiving the non-existence of something does not show non-existence is possible if our conceiving apparatus cannot grasp necessary truths.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Anselmian argument targets conceivability of a maximally great being, not generic necessity—a distinction the objection may conflate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hume's dialogues lack rigorous modal logic and may simply show psychological conceivability differs from metaphysical modality without refuting necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Hume showed we can conceive of God's non-existence without logical contradiction, yet theists claim God necessarily exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Van Inwagen's gap argument demonstrates conceivability requires only logical consistency, not metaphysical grounding or modal truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conceivability depends on cognitive limits and imagination; metaphysical possibility depends on objective modal facts independent of minds.
      ?

      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.