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
    Swinburne's inference therefore relocates rather than res... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The puzzling existence of the universe can be made comprehensible if we suppose it is brought about by a personal God with intentional beliefs and the power to bring intentions to fruition.

    Swinburne's inference therefore relocates rather than resolves the explanatory demand, violating Leibniz's own cosmological standard.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz's PSR demands explanation of why anything exists at all, not just contingent things.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Positing God as a necessary being merely replaces one unexplained explanandum with another.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.True explanatory closure requires explaining the ultimate principle itself, not exempting it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Swinburne's theism satisfies PSR: God's necessity provides genuine explanatory stopping-point.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Relocation is not violation—distinguishing contingent from necessary beings is explanatorily legitimate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Demanding explanation of necessary beings confuses logical necessity with causal demand.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Connections

    1 topic

    Natural Theology1 linked

    Related

    Demanding explanation of necessary beings confuses logical necessity with causal...Leibniz's PSR demands explanation of why anything exists at all, not just contin...Positing God as a necessary being merely replaces one unexplained explanandum wi...Relocation is not violation—distinguishing contingent from necessary beings is e...
    +3 moreShow less
    Swinburne's theism satisfies PSR: God's necessity provides genuine explanatory s...The puzzling existence of the universe can be made comprehensible if we suppose ...True explanatory closure requires explaining the ultimate principle itself, not ...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit