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 force of the cosmological argument from regress does not depend on the impossibility of an actual infinite or infinite regress of causes

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.An infinite regress of contingent causes constitutes a complete explanatory system that requires no external necessary being to account for its existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hume's contention holds that explaining each member of an infinite series individually suffices to explain the whole, making appeal to a necessary being explanatorily redundant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If every contingent member of an infinite series is explained by its predecessor, the demand for a necessary ground commits the fallacy of composition by treating the series as an additional entity requiring separate explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's critique establishes that 'necessary existence' is not a coherent ontological category applicable to any being, since necessity is a logical property of propositions, not of things.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If necessary existence is incoherent as a real predicate, the contrast between contingent and necessary beings that the argument's force entirely depends upon collapses, undermining both the regress-independent and regress-dependent versions equally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The argument's force lies only in the supposition that things which do not exist necessarily by their own nature must be determined to exist by something that does exist necessarily by its own nature
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The argument's conclusion follows even if an infinite regress of causes is granted, provided that no member of such a regress exists necessarily
      ?

      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.