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 Neo-Epicurean explanation that the cosmos's existence and design arose from the random play of physical atoms is untenable.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • Purely physical substances cannot create the elaborate laws which govern the universe.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Epicurean atomism requires an infinite past to make complex order probable, but Boltzmann showed such infinite regress yields Boltzmann Brains before galaxies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Fine-tuning of cosmological constants like the cosmological constant (1 part in 10^120) cannot be explained by undirected atomic collision without invoking an explanatorily vacuous multiverse.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Robin Collins and others demonstrate that probabilistic resources of any finite universe are insufficient to generate observed biochemical complexity by chance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Lucretius himself conceded atoms require a 'swerve' (clinamen) with no physical explanation, importing irreducible indeterminacy that undermines lawlike regularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Regularities presuppose nomological necessity, but random atomic collisions generate only contingent patterns, leaving the uniformity of nature inexplicable on Neo-Epicurean grounds.
      ?

      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.