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 Logical or formal necessity can constitute a non-causal ground for existence without implying temporal or ontological priority over the necessary being.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Grounding requires explanatory priority; priority without temporal or ontological form seems incoherent or merely verbal sleight.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Logical necessity describes *what* must be true, not *why* anything exists; it explains necessity but not facticity of existence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If formal necessity doesn't entail priority, it's unclear how it grounds rather than merely correlates with existence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Mathematical truths ground theorems non-causally without temporal priority; logical necessity works analogously for metaphysical facts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Grounding can be synchronic: a fact's logical structure explains it without any entity preceding it temporally or ontologically.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Necessary beings (like abstracta or God) needn't be caused to exist if their essence entails existence by logical structure alone.
?
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.