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 prime task for the philosophical theist is to demonstrate that God is not impossible.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Modal status of propositions depends on the logical framework adopted, and S5 modal logic—which licenses the move from possibility to necessity for necessary beings—is not the uniquely correct system.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without independent justification for S5 over weaker systems like S4 or B, Hartshorne's ontological argument begs the question by embedding the controversial inference in its modal assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The prime task is therefore not merely showing God is possible, but justifying the modal logic that makes possibility sufficient for necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The claim that divine existence is either impossible or necessary relies on a prior conceptual stipulation that God is a necessarily existent being, which is itself substantively contested.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Philosophers including Kant and more recently Peter van Inwagen argue that existence is not a genuine predicate or perfection, undermining the coherence of 'necessary existence' as a concept.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If 'necessary existence' is not a coherent property, the dichotomy between impossibility and necessity collapses, and demonstrating non-impossibility proves nothing about actual existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.God's existence is either impossible or necessary — there is no middle ground of contingent divine existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If God's existence is possible, it follows necessarily that God exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, establishing that God's existence is not impossible is sufficient to establish that God exists necessarily.
      ?

      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.