Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Swinburne's inference therefore relocates rather than resolves the explanatory demand, violating Leibniz's own cosmological standard.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Swinburne's theism satisfies PSR: God's necessity provides genuine explanatory stopping-point.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Relocation is not violation—distinguishing contingent from necessary beings is explanatorily legitimate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Demanding explanation of necessary beings confuses logical necessity with causal demand.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Leibniz's PSR demands explanation of why anything exists at all, not just contingent things.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Positing God as a necessary being merely replaces one unexplained explanandum with another.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
True explanatory closure requires explaining the ultimate principle itself, not exempting it.
?
How convincing is this?
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.