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
    Since W1 contains p, every conjunct of p in the actual wo... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→There is something (some proposition q) that explains the Big Conjunctive Contingent Fact (BCCF) of the actual world.

    Since W1 contains p, every conjunct of p in the actual world W is also a conjunct of the BCCF of W1, so no property of p is absent from W1.

    Natural 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 Theology

    Related

    If r is a conjunct of p in W, then not-r cannot be a conjunct of p1 (the BCCF of...It is possible that the BCCF of the actual world (p) has an explanation; that is...Since W and W1 have the same properties, W1 is identical to the actual world.There is something (some proposition q) that explains the Big Conjunctive Contin...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Natural Theology
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    +1 moreShow less
    Therefore the actual world contains p, q, and the proposition that q explains p.

    Similar

    If r is a conjunct of p in W, then not-r cannot be a conjunct of p1 (t...82%The Fallacy of Composition mistakenly concludes that since the parts h...77%Therefore the actual world contains p, q, and the proposition that q e...76%A God-property is a property that is possessed by God in all and only ...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: cosmological-argument
    View source passageHide passage
    If one grants modal Axiom S5 (if it is possible that it is necessary that \(p\), then it is necessary that \(p\)), the critical premise in the argument is the second, and Gale and Pruss proceed to defend it using their weak PSR. They begin with the notion of a Big Conjunctive Fact (BCF), which is the totality of propositions that would be true of any possible world were it actualized. Since all possible worlds would have the same necessary propositions, they are differentiated by their Big Conjunctive Contingent Fact (BCCF), which would contain different contingent propositions. Let \(p\) be t...

    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