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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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