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 Plantinga's modal ontological argument shows that S5-based necessity and conceptual necessity collapse into the same inferential structure.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.S5's accessibility relation assumes logical possibility, but conceptual coherence and metaphysical possibility are distinct epistemic categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Plantinga's argument requires that conceivability entails possibility, but this premise itself needs independent justification beyond S5 axioms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Critics (Oppy, Sobel) show the argument's success depends on prior theological assumptions, not on S5 semantics demonstrating their equivalence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.S5 modal semantics treats possible worlds as equally accessible, making metaphysical necessity identical to conceivability across all models.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Plantinga's maximal greatness concept requires logical equivalence between 'possibly necessary' and 'necessarily necessary' in S5 semantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If a property is conceptually coherent (God's omnipotence), S5 guarantees it holds in some possible world, collapsing conceptual into modal necessity.
      ?

      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.