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 must exist a being that is absolutely (not merely h... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    There must exist a being that is absolutely (not merely hypothetically) necessary, whose explanation is contained within itself — this being is God.

    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.Every being in the world has an explanation in some previously existing being or beings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even if the world has no beginning in time, the question 'Why is there a world at all rather than nothing?' cannot be answered by appealing solely to entities within the world or within time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The question 'Why does this particular world exist rather than some other possible world?' cannot be answered by appealing solely to entities within the world or within time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The concept of 'necessary existence' is either analytically incoherent or applies only to abstract logical truths, not to concrete beings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hume demonstrated that existence is not a predicate, so no being's description can logically entail its own existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A being whose non-existence is inconceivable cannot be derived from the contingency of observed beings without committing a modal fallacy of composition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Principle of Sufficient Reason, when applied universally, generates a vicious regress or demands that the necessary being itself requires no explanation, arbitrarily terminating the explanatory chain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bertrand Russell and Hume argued that 'the universe exists' may be a brute fact requiring no further explanation, making the demand for a transcendent cause an unwarranted extrapolation beyond coherent inquiry.
      ?

      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

    Connections

    2 topics

    Causation1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    A being whose non-existence is inconceivable cannot be derived from the continge...Any explanation of the world's existence and character must appeal to a being ou...Bertrand Russell and Hume argued that 'the universe exists' may be a brute fact ...Even if the world has no beginning in time, the question 'Why is there a world a...
    +5 moreShow less
    Every being in the world has an explanation in some previously existing being or...Hume demonstrated that existence is not a predicate, so no being's description c...The Principle of Sufficient Reason, when applied universally, generates a viciou...The concept of 'necessary existence' is either analytically incoherent or applie...The question 'Why does this particular world exist rather than some other possib...

    Similar

    There exists a being that is necessary in itself90%It must be at least possible for God, as a necessary being, to exist89%A necessary being must have its existence either from itself or from a...88%Only a necessary being provides a satisfactory ground or explanation f...86%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: natural-theology
    View source passageHide passage
    Leibniz’s cosmological argument (Leibniz 1697 [PE]: 149–55; 1714 [PP]: 646, [PE]: 218–19) does not assume or attempt to establish that the world, the collection of all actual contingent beings, has a beginning in time, and in this respect it more closely resembles Avicenna’s argument than al-Ghazali’s. Leibniz argues as follows: suppose that in fact the world has no beginning in time, and that each being in the world has an explanation in some previously existing being(s). Two demands for explan
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

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