Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The cosmos is contingent, sharing a key similarity with its content.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
The inference from parts to whole commits the fallacy of composition, as wholes can possess properties absent from their constituents.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Bertrand Russell noted the cosmos as a brute fact needs no explanation beyond itself, making contingency attribution to the whole unwarranted.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Spinoza's monism entails that the totality of existence is necessarily self-caused (causa sui), making the cosmos necessary rather than contingent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If the cosmos is identical to God or Nature (Deus sive Natura), attributing contingency to it conflates modal categories that apply only to finite modes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Both the cosmos and its content are contingent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If the components of the universe are contingent, the universe itself is contingent.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42