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
    The supporting argument illicitly infers ontological dist... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→God-as-knower is not numerically the same as God-as-known.

    The supporting argument illicitly infers ontological distinction from logical or grammatical distinction in how we describe a single entity.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Language often conflates distinct concepts: 'water' and 'H2O' are grammatically identical yet scientifically describe different levels of description.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Medieval philosophers mistakenly inferred real distinctions between essence and existence from the mere fact that we can define them separately.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ontological parsimony requires we not multiply entities beyond necessity; mere linguistic convenience doesn't establish real metaphysical divisions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Some logical distinctions do track genuine ontological features; negation properties exist distinctly even though expressed grammatically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim assumes language is transparent to ontology, yet cannot itself explain why certain grammatical patterns persistently correlate with real differences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Denying all inference from language to being is self-defeating: we'd need language to argue against using language to discover what exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Connections

    1 topic

    Trinity1 linked

    Related

    Denying all inference from language to being is self-defeating: we'd need langua...God-as-knower is not numerically the same as God-as-known.Language often conflates distinct concepts: 'water' and 'H2O' are grammatically ...Medieval philosophers mistakenly inferred real distinctions between essence and ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Ontological parsimony requires we not multiply entities beyond necessity; mere l...Some logical distinctions do track genuine ontological features; negation proper...The claim assumes language is transparent to ontology, yet cannot itself explain...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit