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 Schema 2 would not be vulnerable to the ills of analogy and would claim more than mere probability for its conclusion.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Avoiding analogical structure does not eliminate epistemic vulnerability if the argument's premises themselves rest on analogical or inductive foundations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Schema 2's premises about causal or ontological dependence are typically derived from empirical observation, reintroducing inductive uncertainty at the foundational level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hume's regress objection applies: any non-analogical cosmological argument must still justify its first principles, which cannot be done without circularity or induction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant argued in the Critique of Pure Reason that any a priori cosmological argument covertly smuggles in the ontological argument, which itself fails to establish necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Schema 2 claims more than probability, it must be either analytic or synthetic a priori, but Kant's transcendental dialectic shows neither route yields sound theological conclusions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Schema 2 is not analogically structured.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Schema 2 is not inductive.
      ?

      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.