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
    It would be incoherent for a person who believes a deduct... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It would be incoherent for a person who believes a deductive cosmological argument for God's existence is sound to then deny that God exists.

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • If someone believes that a deductive cosmological argument (proof) for God's existence is sound, then accepting the soundness of the argument logically commits them to accepting the conclusion that God exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A person can believe an argument is valid and its premises true while remaining agnostic about whether the conclusion-term refers to anything real.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The concept 'God' in a cosmological argument's conclusion may not map onto the theistic God of worship, leaving existential commitment coherently suspended.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hinge propositions, as Wittgenstein argued in 'On Certainty', function as framework commitments that resist revision by argument alone, even sound argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An atheist's denial of God's existence may operate as a hinge proposition immune to doxastic revision through logical inference, not as a logical inconsistency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Related

    A person can believe an argument is valid and its premises true while remaining ...An atheist's denial of God's existence may operate as a hinge proposition immune...Hinge propositions, as Wittgenstein argued in 'On Certainty', function as framew...If someone believes that a deductive cosmological argument (proof) for God's exi...
    +1 moreShow less
    The concept 'God' in a cosmological argument's conclusion may not map onto the t...

    Similar

    If someone believes that a deductive cosmological argument (proof) for...91%It would be contradictory for a person to affirm the premises of a ded...89%The PSR, when used to construct a deductive cosmological argument, lea...86%Rather than being superfluous, the cosmological argument provides inde...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: cosmological-argument
    Swinburne
    View source passageHide passage
    Swinburne is correct that if someone believes that a deductive cosmological argument (proof) for God’s existence is sound, then it would be incoherent for that same person to then deny that God exists. However, in their respective proofs defenders of the deductive cosmological arguments make a claim about incoherence, namely, that it would be contradictory for the same person to affirm the premises of the argument and to claim that God or a personal necessary being does not exist. And they believe both that the respective premises have the intuitiveness that Swinburne deems necessary and that ...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: If accepting the soundness of a deductive argument logically commits one to accepting its conclusion, then denying that conclusion while believing the argument is sound would indeed be incoherent, so the premise provides rational grounds for the conclusion.

    Confidence: Clearly attributed to Swinburne's position

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit