Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If human perception requires a divine intermediary, the causal connection between the material world and human experience becomes entirely unintelligible.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Many intelligible causal systems invoke intermediate entities (neurons, photons); divine intermediaries could function similarly.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Unintelligibility may reflect human cognitive limits, not actual causal opacity; we once found atoms unintelligible too.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates epistemic access with metaphysical coherence; a causal connection can exist without being fully intelligible to us.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Direct causal chains require intelligible mechanisms; divine intermediaries introduce unexplainable gaps in physical causation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If perception depends on non-physical mediation, we cannot apply empirical methods to verify or understand the causal pathway.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Intelligibility requires reducing phenomena to knowable principles; divine intermediaries resist such reduction by definition.
?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42