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
    There is no clearly articulated full set of premises for ... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    There is no clearly articulated full set of premises for a 'Hegelian' ontological argument.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.No example is provided of a 'Hegelian' ontological argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There is no extant discussion that states clearly the full set of premises of a 'Hegelian' ontological argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hegel's Logic explicitly reconstructs the concept of Being as self-determining, culminating in the Absolute Idea that necessarily exists as concrete totality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Robert Stern and William Desmond have articulated formal reconstructions of Hegel's argument that God's concept entails actuality through dialectical self-negation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The absence of a single canonical formulation reflects Hegel's method, not the absence of a reconstructible argument with identifiable premises.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quentin Lauer and Charles Taylor reconstruct from the Science of Logic a valid inference: the Absolute cannot be merely possible without contradiction, since possibility itself presupposes actuality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A philosophical argument need not be explicitly listed as numbered premises to constitute a clearly articulable ontological argument recoverable from the text.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Related

    A philosophical argument need not be explicitly listed as numbered premises to c...Hegel's Logic explicitly reconstructs the concept of Being as self-determining, ...No example is provided of a 'Hegelian' ontological argument.Quentin Lauer and Charles Taylor reconstruct from the Science of Logic a valid i...
    +3 moreShow less
    Robert Stern and William Desmond have articulated formal reconstructions of Hege...The absence of a single canonical formulation reflects Hegel's method, not the a...There is no extant discussion that states clearly the full set of premises of a ...

    Similar

    There is no extant discussion that states clearly the full set of prem...94%No example is provided of a 'Hegelian' ontological argument.89%The ontological argument for God's existence is unsound.84%The ontological argument claims that because the idea of God includes ...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: ontological-arguments
    View source passageHide passage
    Note: No example is provided of a ‘Hegelian’ ontological argument. There is no extent discussion that states clearly the full set of premises of a ‘Hegelian’ ontological argument. (See Redding and Bubbio 2014 for recent discussion of this point.)
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The conclusion is directly stated in premise 2 and is clearly present in the source passage, which explicitly notes that there is no extant discussion that states clearly the full set of premises of a 'Hegelian' ontological argument.

    Confidence: The text explicitly states this as an observation, functioning as a supporting argument for the conclusion that no such argument has been clearly formulated.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit