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 and Kant's criticisms of the ontological argument do not target the strongest version of Anselm's argument found in Proslogion chapter 3.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's critique that existence is not a predicate applies equally to necessary existence, since necessity modifies the concept, not reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'exists necessarily' is still a predicate attributed to a concept, Kant's objection that no predicate can guarantee extra-mental existence remains fully operative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Proslogion 3's modal framing does not escape the is/ought gap between conceptual necessity and ontological necessity that Kant's Critique identifies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's Dialogues Part IX argues that whatever can be conceived as existing can be conceived as not existing, which directly targets modal necessity claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If conceivability of non-existence applies to any being, including a necessarily existing one, then Proslogion 3's modal distinction collapses under Humean scrutiny.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Scholarly consensus from Oppy and Sobel holds that Hume's conceivability argument is broad enough to undermine necessary existence as a coherent modal category.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The strongest version of Anselm's ontological argument is found in Proslogion chapter 3.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Proslogion chapter 3 implies a modal distinction between existing necessarily and existing contingently.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hume's and Kant's criticisms are not directed at this modal version of the argument.
      ?

      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.