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 principle of the impossibility of an actual infinite regress was not central to Avicenna's cosmological argument for God's existence

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • Mayer (2001) demonstrated that this principle was not central to Avicenna's cosmological/ontological argument
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Avicenna's argument in the Shifa proceeds by dividing existents into necessary and contingent, requiring no infinite regress prohibition to establish a Necessary Existent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The modal distinction between wajib al-wujud and mumkin al-wujud is logically prior to and independent of any temporal or causal series considerations in Avicenna's framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Avicenna explicitly accepts infinite causal chains of contingent beings in his cosmology, which would be incoherent if infinite regress prohibition were central to his argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Davidson (1987) in 'Proofs for Eternity' shows Avicenna's argument terminates in a synchronic dependence relation, not a diachronic regress requiring an anti-infinite-regress principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A synchronic modal argument from contingency to necessity requires only that the aggregate of contingents lacks self-sufficient existence, not that an infinite series is impossible.
      ?

      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.