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 inference from 'X must be possible' to 'a divine caus... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→We must postulate a supreme cause of nature having a causality in keeping with the moral disposition

    The inference from 'X must be possible' to 'a divine cause of X must exist' commits the fallacy of treating logical possibility as requiring ontological guarantors.

    ?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 possibility (coherence) is a feature of concepts, not a metaphysical force requiring external grounding or explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Inferring ontological needs from mere logical coherence conflates the absence of contradiction with the presence of causal requirements.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Many logically possible scenarios (e.g., different physical constants) exist without divine intervention, undermining the inference pattern.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The distinction between logical and ontological possibility may itself require explanation—logical space might reflect actual metaphysical structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If certain possibilities require actualization conditions (e.g., free choice requires an agent), then some logical possibilities do need ontological guarantors.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim assumes logical possibility is self-sufficient, but this itself is a substantive metaphysical claim needing independent justification.
      ?

      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

    Natural Theology1 linkedDivine Attributes1 linked

    Related

    If certain possibilities require actualization conditions (e.g., free choice req...Inferring ontological needs from mere logical coherence conflates the absence of...Logical possibility (coherence) is a feature of concepts, not a metaphysical for...Many logically possible scenarios (e.g., different physical constants) exist wit...
    +3 moreShow less
    The claim assumes logical possibility is self-sufficient, but this itself is a s...The distinction between logical and ontological possibility may itself require e...We must postulate a supreme cause of nature having a causality in keeping with t...

    Details

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