Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The necessary being to which the cosmological argument concludes is God (or at least has properties appropriate to a divine being).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
A necessary being need only possess the property of necessary existence, not omnipotence, omniscience, or moral perfection.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Spinoza's substance and the universe itself qualify as necessary beings without possessing theistically relevant divine attributes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The inference from 'necessary existence' to 'divine properties' commits a non-sequitur unless additional premises bridge metaphysical necessity and theological perfection.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Hume's Dialogues establishes that the causal principle 'whatever exists has a cause' can terminate at the material universe itself, construed as self-explanatory.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If the universe or its constituent laws can be assigned the status of necessary existence, the cosmological argument underdetermines the conclusion that the necessary being is personal or God.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
From the concept of a necessary being flow properties appropriate to a divine being.
?
How convincing is this?
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.