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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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