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
    Leibniz and Clarke's deductive cosmological arguments suc... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Swinburne's cosmological argument should be constructed inductively rather than deductively

    Leibniz and Clarke's deductive cosmological arguments succeed precisely because necessary existence is not a contingent empirical hypothesis subject to probabilistic confirmation.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Necessary existence is a logical property that either obtains or doesn't—it cannot be confirmed/disconfirmed by empirical evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Deductive arguments about necessary beings avoid inductive fallacies by operating entirely within the domain of logical possibility and necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Contingent facts require explanation; if all beings are contingent, the explanatory chain never terminates, so a necessary being must exist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Whether 'necessary existence' is coherent or applies to anything real is precisely what requires justification, not what grounds deductive success.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Deductive arguments only succeed if their premises are true; Leibniz and Clarke never establish that a necessary being is actually possible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The PSR (Principle of Sufficient Reason) itself is contingent metaphysical doctrine that cannot ground necessity without circular reasoning.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Natural Theology1 linked

    Related

    Contingent facts require explanation; if all beings are contingent, the explanat...Deductive arguments about necessary beings avoid inductive fallacies by operatin...Deductive arguments only succeed if their premises are true; Leibniz and Clarke ...Necessary existence is a logical property that either obtains or doesn't—it cann...
    +3 moreShow less
    Swinburne's cosmological argument should be constructed inductively rather than ...The PSR (Principle of Sufficient Reason) itself is contingent metaphysical doctr...Whether 'necessary existence' is coherent or applies to anything real is precise...

    Details

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