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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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