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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Not all existing things are necessary

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.There are possibles that never exist
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If everything that exists were necessary, then nothing else could exist in its place
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If nothing else could exist in its place, then everything that never exists would be impossible
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason entails that contingent things require external causes, distinguishing them from self-grounding necessary beings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a thing's non-existence is conceivable without contradiction, as Hume argued of all matters of fact, then its existence is contingent rather than necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Contingent existence, grounded in God's free choice among compossible worlds, is a core commitment of classical theism and Leibnizian metaphysics alike.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Modal actualism collapses the distinction between what is actual and what is necessary, rendering impossible any unrealized potentiality in nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aristotle's distinction between potentiality and actuality requires that some actual states could have been otherwise, preserving genuine contingency in the world.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42