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 PSR is not a necessary truth, the inference from 'God lacks a differentiating reason' to 'God cannot act' does not follow.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Even if PSR is contingent, the logical structure of the inference remains sound given PSR's actual truth in our world.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Denying PSR doesn't license arbitrary action; without differentiating reasons, God's act would be metaphysically unintelligible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The inference conflates epistemic justification with metaphysical necessity; PSR's contingency doesn't resolve the explanatory gap.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
PSR is contingent on metaphysical framework assumptions, not logically necessary in all possible worlds.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Without PSR as necessary truth, lack of differentiating reason doesn't entail inability to act; it permits uncaused action.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Agent causation can operate independently of reason-provision; reasons constrain but don't constitute action-capacity.
?
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.