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 incompatibility objection only defeats versions relyi... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The ontological argument is unsound.

    The incompatibility objection only defeats versions relying on naive greatness-summing, not modal versions that ground greatness in broadly logical necessity.

    ?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.Logical necessity avoids arbitrariness: properties grounded in necessity don't depend on contingent summation procedures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Modal versions can isolate genuine perfections: a property is great iff its absence entails logical impossibility or limitation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Naive summing creates contradictions (omnipotence + immutability); modal grounding dissolves these by non-additive criteria.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Modal grounding merely relocates the problem: why should logical necessity determine greatness rather than metaphysical priority?
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The incompatibility objection targets greatness-attribution itself, not summation: modal versions still need greatness concepts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Logical necessity is too restrictive: it excludes contingent perfections (love, grace, responsive freedom) from divine attributes.
      ?

      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

    Problem of Evil1 linked

    Related

    Logical necessity avoids arbitrariness: properties grounded in necessity don't d...Logical necessity is too restrictive: it excludes contingent perfections (love, ...Modal grounding merely relocates the problem: why should logical necessity deter...Modal versions can isolate genuine perfections: a property is great iff its abse...
    +3 moreShow less
    Naive summing creates contradictions (omnipotence + immutability); modal groundi...The incompatibility objection targets greatness-attribution itself, not summatio...The ontological argument is unsound.

    Details

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