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
    The ontological argument fails because we cannot know or ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The ontological argument fails because we cannot know or rationally presume that it is really possible for the divine perfections to be jointly exemplified.

    Modality & PossibilityNatural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Plantinga's modal ontological argument requires stipulating S5's Brouwer axiom, which itself presupposes the very modal facts about divine possibility in question.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Conceivability without contradiction establishes epistemic possibility, not metaphysical possibility, as Kripke's work on necessary a posteriori truths decisively demonstrated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The burden of proof for positive existential modal claims falls on the one asserting possibility, not the skeptic, per standard Quinean criteria for ontological commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's insight that existence is not a predicate entails that 'necessarily existing being' smuggles an existential claim into the concept of divine perfection itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hume's Dialogues establish that no coherent account has been given of how omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect goodness mutually constrain rather than contradict one another at the metaphysical level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Logical consistency (absence of contradiction) is not sufficient to establish real possibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There are ways of being impossible that do not involve logical contradictions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.We cannot determine whether God, conceived as having necessary existence, is really possible.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Natural TheologyModality & Possibility

    Related

    Conceivability without contradiction establishes epistemic possibility, not meta...Hume's Dialogues establish that no coherent account has been given of how omnipo...Kant's insight that existence is not a predicate entails that 'necessarily exist...Logical consistency (absence of contradiction) is not sufficient to establish re...
    +4 moreShow less
    Plantinga's modal ontological argument requires stipulating S5's Brouwer axiom, ...The burden of proof for positive existential modal claims falls on the one asser...There are ways of being impossible that do not involve logical contradictions.We cannot determine whether God, conceived as having necessary existence, is rea...

    Similar

    The ontological argument is unsound unless the possibility of a maxima...87%The ontological argument is valid only if a maximally perfect being is...84%The ontological argument is defective because nothing can be determine...82%The ontological argument eliminates the second alternative — that God ...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: natural-theology
    View source passageHide passage
    Kant’s most pressing criticism, in our view, goes back to the issue raised by Mersenne: we cannot determine whether God (conceived as having necessary existence or not) is really possible. Kant grants to Leibniz that the notion of a most perfect being may not involve a logical contradiction, but he argues that this is not enough to show that it is really possible, for there are ways of being impossible that do not involve logical contradictions (A602/B630). The implication for the ontological ar
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit