Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Leibniz argued that God's sufficiency as a complete explanatory ground renders competing co-creators redundant within any adequate cosmological account.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Reality exhibits genuine causal plurality (human free will, natural laws); monistic explanation may sacrifice empirical adequacy.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Leibniz conflates logical sufficiency with causal exclusivity; God could be adequate without being the sole active agent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim assumes 'complete explanatory ground' is coherent; it may merely relocate rather than resolve fundamental metaphysical puzzles.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
An omnipotent being requires no assistance; invoking additional creators contradicts logical parsimony and divine perfection.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason demands a single ultimate ground; multiple co-creators generate infinite regress problems.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
God's complete knowledge and power entails complete causal responsibility; co-creators would dilute God's explanatory adequacy.
?
How convincing is this?
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.