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 The analogy between positing God and positing relational tropes fails because the Problem of Evil generates a logical tension within a pre-accepted framework, while Bradley's regress targets the framework itself.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Both arguments challenge core commitments: the Problem of Evil attacks God's properties, while Bradley's regress attacks whether relational properties can exist at all.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinction between 'internal tension' and 'framework collapse' is unclear: both show a proposed ontology faces insurmountable logical difficulties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.One could argue theism, like trope theory, might accommodate its objection through framework revision, making the structural distinction less decisive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The Problem of Evil assumes theism's coherence then derives contradiction, so it operates within an accepted metaphysical framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bradley's regress questions whether relations themselves can exist without prior relations, attacking the foundational ontological structure itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Internal inconsistencies differ fundamentally from infinite regresses that undermine the viability of the entire framework being proposed.
      ?

      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.