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 If contingency is secured by the infinitude of the analysis rather than by rejecting a priori grounding, necessitarianism does not follow from PSR.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Infinite analysis merely defers explanation indefinitely; it never actually grounds contingency in anything determinate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If PSR requires complete intelligibility, an infinite chain remains unintelligible as a whole—no explanation of why this chain exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Necessitarianism follows if only necessary beings can ground facts; infinite contingency chains lack ultimate grounding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Infinite analysis preserves explanatory closure without requiring every fact to be metaphysically necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.PSR demands sufficient reason, not that reasons terminate in necessities; infinite regress satisfies sufficiency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Contingency requires only that a fact could have been otherwise, compatible with infinite grounding chains.
      ?

      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.