Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If each contingent being in an infinite series is explained by its predecessor, the series as a whole need not have an explanation beyond its members.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Explaining each member's existence by reference to prior members leaves unexplained why the entire chain exists rather than nothing.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
An infinite series composed entirely of dependent beings cannot collectively be self-sustaining; dependence cannot generate independence through accumulation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The principle that every contingent fact requires explanation is either true universally or not—applying it selectively to members but not the aggregate is inconsistent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Explanation is fundamentally relational: if A explains B and B explains C, then A's existence suffices to explain C without additional justification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
An infinite regress of explanations is logically coherent and requires no external ground if each step is internally consistent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Demanding explanation of the series itself commits a category error: wholes need not have properties beyond their compositional parts.
?
How convincing is this?
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.