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 the existence of each contingent thing is fully explained by its proximate contingent cause, no further explanation of the aggregate is logically demanded beyond its members.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The existence of the aggregate itself—that these parts compose one unified system—is logically distinct from their individual existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Explaining why each domino falls doesn't explain why they all fell in sequence; compositional facts require compositional explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Infinite regress of contingent causes demands explanation of why this infinite chain exists rather than nothing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If each member of a set has a complete explanation, no logical gap remains requiring explanation of the set itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Composition poses no new explanatory burden—explaining parts exhausts what needs explaining about their aggregate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Demanding explanation of the whole beyond its explained parts commits the mereological fallacy.
      ?

      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.