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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.