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
    The passage sets up a framework for modal arguments about... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The passage sets up a framework for modal arguments about God's existence but does not complete the argument with explicit premises and conclusion beyond the setup.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Some theists hold that God is a necessarily existent being, meaning God exists in every possible world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.All non-theists reject the claim that God exists in the actual world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A claim is possibly true just in case it is true in at least one possible world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Plantinga's modal ontological argument in 'The Nature of Necessity' (1974) provides fully explicit premises and conclusions within this same modal framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A framework that has been completed by major figures in the same tradition cannot be accurately characterized as lacking explicit premises and conclusions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Anselm's Proslogion II-III already articulates the inference from conceivability to necessary existence with sufficient logical structure to constitute a complete argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant's critique in the 'Critique of Pure Reason' presupposes that the ontological argument has a completed logical structure, treating 'existence is not a predicate' as a direct refutation of explicit premises.
      ?

      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 Theology

    Related

    A claim is necessarily true just in case it is true in every possible world.A claim is possibly true just in case it is true in at least one possible world.A framework that has been completed by major figures in the same tradition canno...All non-theists reject the claim that God exists in the actual world.
    +4 moreShow less
    Anselm's Proslogion II-III already articulates the inference from conceivability...Kant's critique in the 'Critique of Pure Reason' presupposes that the ontologica...Plantinga's modal ontological argument in 'The Nature of Necessity' (1974) provi...Some theists hold that God is a necessarily existent being, meaning God exists i...

    Similar

    There is no clearly articulated full set of premises for a 'Hegelian' ...78%Theorem-provers confirmed that Gödel's original argument entails modal...77%The variations of Gödel's ontological argument proposed by C. Anthony ...75%Hume's and Kant's criticisms are not directed at this modal version of...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: ontological-arguments
    View source passageHide passage
    (3) Modal arguments: These are arguments with premises which concern modal claims about God, i.e., claims about the possibility or necessity of God’s attributes and existence. Suppose that we agree to think about possibility and necessity in terms of possible worlds: a claim is possibly true just in case it is true in at least one possible world; a claim is necessarily true just in case it is true in every possible world; and a claim is contingent just in case it is true in some possible worlds and false in others. Some theists hold that God is a necessarily existent being, i.e., that God exis...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The extracted argument accurately captures the passage's content, which indeed sets up definitional framework and positions of theists and non-theists regarding modal arguments but explicitly trails off ("The sample argument consists, in effect, of two premises:") without completing the argument, and the premises faithfully reflect the passage's stated claims.

    Confidence: The passage introduces the framework and mentions that the sample argument consists of two premises, but the actual premises of that argument are not given in this excerpt. Extracting only the setup as presented.

    Details

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