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 necessary existence were analytically contained in 'divine person,' the ontological argument would be trivially valid, which even theists like Plantinga deny.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Trivial validity doesn't entail unsoundness; some arguments validly move from definitions to true conclusions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Plantinga's denial of the argument's triviality may reflect epistemological concerns about logical intuitions, not metaphysical reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates 'analytically contained' with 'immediately obvious' — analytic truths can still require significant conceptual work to establish.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Plantinga rejects that necessary existence is analytically contained in the concept of a maximally great being.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the ontological argument were trivially valid, it would prove God's existence by definition alone, requiring no substantive metaphysical work.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Plantinga's modal ontological argument requires possible worlds analysis, showing he treats the argument as non-trivial.
      ?

      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.