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
    Objections to one version of the cosmological argument ne... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Objections to one version of the cosmological argument need not refute other versions

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The three types of cosmological arguments differ in their approach to infinite regress
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A critique of the Principle of Sufficient Reason as developed by Rowe or Gale may be irrelevant to the Thomistic or kalām versions
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.All three cosmological argument types share a common logical core: inferring a necessary first cause from contingent existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hume's Dialogues demonstrate that any inference from observed contingency to a necessary being commits the same modal fallacy regardless of formulation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the shared modal inference is fallacious, then the family of arguments fails collectively, not merely version by version.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's Critique of Pure Reason argues that 'necessary being' is an incoherent concept that corrupts any cosmological argument at the point of termination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Since kalām, Thomistic, and Leibnizian arguments all terminate their regress by positing a necessary being, Kant's transcendental dialectic refutes the shared terminus rather than a version-specific premise.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Related

    A critique of the Principle of Sufficient Reason as developed by Rowe or Gale ma...All three cosmological argument types share a common logical core: inferring a n...Hume's Dialogues demonstrate that any inference from observed contingency to a n...If the shared modal inference is fallacious, then the family of arguments fails ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Kant's Critique of Pure Reason argues that 'necessary being' is an incoherent co...Since kalām, Thomistic, and Leibnizian arguments all terminate their regress by ...The three types of cosmological arguments differ in their approach to infinite r...

    Similar

    The conclusion of all versions of the cosmological argument invokes an...82%The version of the PSR used by traditional defenders of the cosmologic...79%The three types of cosmological arguments differ in their approach to ...79%The cosmological argument is defective.79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: cosmological-argument
    View source passageHide passage
    Philosophers employ diverse classifications of the cosmological arguments. Swinburne distinguishes inductive from deductive versions. Craig distinguishes three types of deductive cosmological arguments in terms of their approach to an infinite regress of causes. The first, advocated by Aquinas, is based on the impossibility of an essentially ordered infinite regress. The second, which Craig terms the kalām argument, holds that an infinite temporal regress of causes is impossible because an actua
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit