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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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