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
    The burden of proof falls on those claiming metaphysical ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Concrete infinities are metaphysically impossible

    The burden of proof falls on those claiming metaphysical impossibility to identify which specific metaphysical necessity concrete infinities violate.

    ?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.Vague objections without specificity are philosophically weak; critics should articulate which logical or metaphysical laws concrete infinities violate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Many metaphysical necessities are debated (identity, composition, causation); infinities deserve equal scrutiny rather than blanket dismissal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The burden-shifting approach prevents infinite regress of unsubstantiated skepticism about any purportedly impossible entity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Burden of proof may lie with existence-claimers, not disprovers; we don't require refuters to specify which laws ghosts violate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Some impossibilities are foundational (contradictions, violations of non-identity); asking for itemization presupposes they're merely contingent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Demanding critics name specific violated necessities may conflate epistemic accessibility with metaphysical legitimacy of the impossibility claim.
      ?

      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

    Burden of proof may lie with existence-claimers, not disprovers; we don't requir...Concrete infinities are metaphysically impossibleDemanding critics name specific violated necessities may conflate epistemic acce...Many metaphysical necessities are debated (identity, composition, causation); in...
    +3 moreShow less
    Some impossibilities are foundational (contradictions, violations of non-identit...The burden-shifting approach prevents infinite regress of unsubstantiated skepti...Vague objections without specificity are philosophically weak; critics should ar...

    Details

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