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 Principle of Sufficient Reason, understood as 'everything not metaphysically necessary has an explanation in something metaphysically necessary', leads to a logically necessary being

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The PSR can be satisfied by an infinite regress of contingent explanations, none of which requires a necessary terminus (Hume, Dialogues IX).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Leibniz illicitly assumes the regress must terminate, but serial explanation without a ground is logically coherent on broadly Humean ontology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant demonstrated that 'logically necessary existence' is not a coherent property: necessity is a feature of propositions, not of beings (Critique A592/B620).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even if the PSR entails a terminus of explanation, that terminus need only be causally or nomologically necessary, not logically necessary in the Leibnizian sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The PSR requires that everything lacking metaphysical necessity be explained by something metaphysically necessary
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Following the PSR to its conclusion yields a being that is logically necessary, as in Leibniz
      ?

      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.