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 objection that premise (3) requires prefixing 'According to the idea of God' is undermined

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Whether God possesses a 'true and immutable nature' is precisely what is at issue and cannot be assumed without begging the question.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Descartes' criterion for true and immutable natures presupposes a Platonic realism about essences that many rationalist and empiricist traditions explicitly reject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If fabricated ideas like a 'highest existing horse' can mimic the logical structure of true natures, the distinction fails to secure God's unique ontological status.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's transcendental idealism establishes that existence is not a predicate, making any inference from conceptual content to extra-mental existence formally invalid.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even granting true and immutable natures exist 'in some mode,' this modal existence within the understanding cannot license conclusions about mind-independent existence without a further illicit step.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Only claims about things that lack a true and immutable nature require restriction to 'according to the idea of X'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.God's nature is a true and immutable nature
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.True and immutable natures themselves exist in some mode, not merely as conceptual constructs
      ?

      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.