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 Kant's critique in the Critique of Pure Reason establishes that existence is not a predicate, making the derivation of further predicates from necessary existence logically suspect.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Kant's distinction between predicates and existence may be grammatical rather than metaphysical, leaving open whether existence has real causal or modal properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Classical theists argue 'necessary existence' is not bare existence but entails essential properties (immutability, aseity), which Kant's critique doesn't address.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even if existence isn't a predicate in Kant's sense, deriving predicates from necessary existence may work through modal logic without treating existence as predicative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Kant correctly identified that 'existence' adds no conceptual content to a subject's definition, unlike genuine predicates like 'red' or 'wise'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If existence isn't a predicate, then 'necessary existence' cannot ground further predicates, since it provides no determinate properties to derive from.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ontological arguments that move from necessary existence to other divine attributes commit a logical fallacy by treating existence as substantive.
      ?

      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.