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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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