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 Zeno analogy fails because motion's possibility was n... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→If we have good reason to believe that p is true and good reason to believe that q is true, then we have good reason to believe that p and q are logically consistent, even without understanding how they could be mutually consistent.

    The Zeno analogy fails because motion's possibility was never seriously doubted on theological grounds, whereas divine simplicity faces internal conceptual incoherence claims.

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

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Connections

    1 topic

    Divine Attributes1 linked

    Related

    If we have good reason to believe that p is true and good reason to believe that...

    Details

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective