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 cosmological argument does not establish that God is the necessary being responsible for the rest of the cosmos

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If we truly understood the nature of matter, we might be unable to conceive matter's nonexistence
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If matter's nonexistence is inconceivable given full understanding, then matter's existence is not contingent and requires no external explanation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.By parity of reasoning, the same move used to establish God as a necessary being could be made for matter
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The cosmological argument requires a terminating explanation, but any candidate necessary being must itself be explained by what makes it necessary rather than contingent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Leibniz's own Principle of Sufficient Reason applies reflexively: if God's necessity requires no further explanation, this exemption is arbitrary and undermines the PSR that motivates the argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A principle that demands explanation for all contingent things but exempts one entity generates an ad hoc stopping rule, not a principled metaphysical terminus.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's Dialogues establish that inferring the properties of a cause solely from its effects is epistemically illegitimate when the causal mechanism is entirely unknown.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even granting a necessary first cause, the inference from 'necessary being' to 'personal, omnipotent God' requires bridging premises about intentionality and power that the argument's structure cannot supply.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The concept of necessity invoked—whether logical, metaphysical, or causal—is systematically ambiguous across Aquinas, Leibniz, and Kalam formulations, preventing a unified conclusion about the being's nature.
      ?

      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.