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
    The inference from 'natural reason has so far failed to e... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A full explanation of the cohabitation of spirit and body in human beings requires transcending the physical realm

    The inference from 'natural reason has so far failed to explain X' to 'X requires transcending the physical realm' commits the argument from ignorance fallacy.

    ?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.Absence of explanation at time T does not entail explanation is impossible; science regularly explains previously mysterious phenomena through physical mechanisms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The inference treats current explanatory limits as evidence for transcendence rather than as gaps requiring further empirical investigation and theoretical development.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Many historical cases show invoking non-physical causes halted productive inquiry that eventually succeeded through naturalistic approaches.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Some domains (consciousness, intentionality) show persistent explanatory gaps despite centuries of physical investigation, suggesting structural rather than temporary limits.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The fallacy label assumes future physical explanation is possible; but some phenomena might genuinely require non-physical explanation—mere ignorance ≠ fallacy if conclusion could be true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Demanding only physical explanations while forbidding transcendent ones presupposes physicalism rather than deriving it from evidence, potentially begging the question.
      ?

      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

    2 topics

    Consciousness & Mind1 linkedNatural Theology1 linked

    Related

    A full explanation of the cohabitation of spirit and body in human beings requir...Absence of explanation at time T does not entail explanation is impossible; scie...Demanding only physical explanations while forbidding transcendent ones presuppo...Many historical cases show invoking non-physical causes halted productive inquir...
    +3 moreShow less
    Some domains (consciousness, intentionality) show persistent explanatory gaps de...The fallacy label assumes future physical explanation is possible; but some phen...The inference treats current explanatory limits as evidence for transcendence ra...

    Details

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