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
    Q cannot prove the existence of any necessary beings — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The full necessitation principle Nec is inapplicable to formulas containing free terms in Q

    Q cannot prove the existence of any necessary beings

    Modality & PossibilityNatural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Natural TheologyModality & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge3 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Natural Theology
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Applying Nec to formulas with free terms referring to contingent beings would be...Some free terms in Q might refer to contingent beingsThe full necessitation principle Nec is inapplicable to formulas containing free...

    Similar

    We cannot determine whether God, conceived as having necessary existen...83%It must be at least possible for God, as a necessary being, to exist83%If a being is absolutely necessary, then its nonexistence should be ab...83%God's existence is either impossible or necessary — there is no middle...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: possibilism-actualism
    View source passageHide passage
    The unprovability of \(\rS \tau\) in Q and, hence, more generally, Q’s inability to prove the existence of any necessary beings is the key difference between Q and SQML and, more specifically, it is what justifies the inapplicability of the full necessitation principle Nec to formulas containing free terms, since some of those terms might refer to contingent beings. This is, in particular, the key to blocking the controversial theorems of SQML, as their proofs all depend essentially on such an a

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective