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 argument from premises 1, 2, and 5 to statement 6 is either sound but not heretical, or unsound due to invalidity

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The disjunction 'sound but not heretical OR unsound due to invalidity' commits a false dichotomy by excluding a third possibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An argument can be unsound due to false premises rather than invalidity, which the claim's disjunction structurally ignores.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Arius and later Socinians demonstrated that orthodox Trinitarian premises themselves can be coherently rejected, making the argument unsound via premise falsity rather than invalidity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Peter Geach and Peter van Inwagen's relative identity solution entails that the argument from premises 1, 2, and 5 is both valid and sound under standard identity logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If relative identity is false and classical Leibniz-style identity holds, statement 6 follows necessarily from premises 1, 2, and 5, rendering the argument valid and its conclusion genuinely heretical.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim that the argument escapes heresy only by becoming invalid therefore presupposes a contentious metaphysics of identity that cannot be assumed without argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Premises 1 and 2 are unclear and admit multiple interpretations
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Under one interpretation the argument is sound but the conclusion is not heretical
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Under another interpretation the argument is invalid because statement 6 does not follow from premises 1, 2, and 5
      ?

      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.