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 remains an open question whether some hitherto undiscovered ontological argument for the existence of God could succeed.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's critique that existence is not a predicate exposes a structural flaw intrinsic to all ontological arguments, not merely contingent versions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any argument inferring necessary existence from conceptual analysis alone must treat existence as a perfection or property, which Kant showed is categorically illegitimate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the failure-condition is not accidental to past arguments but is built into the ontological form itself, closing the space for future success.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege and Russell's formal logic establishes that existence is a second-order predicate about concepts, not a first-order property instantiated by individuals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ontological arguments require that maximal greatness or necessary existence function as a first-order property God uniquely possesses, which modern predicate logic disallows.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Since this logical constraint is not empirical but formal, no future reformulation escapes it without abandoning the ontological argument's defining a priori character.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Even if the foregoing analyses are correct, no argument has been given for the general conclusion that no ontological argument can be successful.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even if all kinds of ontological arguments produced to date are clearly unsuccessful, that does not rule out the possibility of a new kind that does succeed.
      ?

      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.