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 It is necessary that a supernatural being of some sort exists.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Modal claims about necessity require truth-makers, and on Humean or deflationary accounts of modality, there are no facts that ground the necessity of any concrete being's existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hume's Dialogues and the 'Anselmian gap' objection (van Inwagen 1994) establish that conceivability of necessary existence does not entail its genuine metaphysical possibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without an independent route to genuine possibility—beyond bare conceptual consistency—P2 of both arguments reduces to the undefended assertion that the conclusion is possible, rendering the argument circular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.S5's axiom that ◇□P→□P holds only within a single modal system, but the possibility operator in P2 smuggles in a substantive metaphysical claim that requires independent justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Asserting that supernatural necessity is even coherently possible presupposes a robust modal realism about supernatural entities, which is precisely what naturalists deny and cannot be assumed without begging the question.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If it is possible that it is necessary that a supernatural being of some sort exists, then it is necessary that a supernatural being of that sort exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is possible that it is necessary that a supernatural being of some sort exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If it is possible that it is necessary that a supernatural being of some sort exists, then it is necessary that a supernatural being of that sort exists (by modal Axiom S5).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is possible that it is necessary that a supernatural being of some sort exists.
      ?

      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.