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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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