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 second horn—goodness is whatever God's nature is—entails that God's nature is good by definition, making divine goodness trivially true and morally vacuous.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mathematical truths are tautological yet substantive—they reveal real structural facts about reality, not mere linguistic conventions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.God's nature being the standard of goodness doesn't make 'God is good' vacuous any more than 'the meter bar is one meter long' is vacuous.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim entails that actions contrary to God's nature are genuinely wrong, giving moral content despite the tautological form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If goodness is defined as 'whatever God's nature is,' then 'God is good' becomes a tautology like 'bachelors are unmarried.'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Tautologies are conceptually true but informationally empty—they tell us nothing about God's actual moral character or actions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Moral claims should have substantive content; calling God 'good' by mere definitional fiat strips the term of evaluative force.
      ?

      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.