Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Van Inwagen's consequence argument establishes that if the pluriverse necessarily exists, its existence is brute and admits of no further explanation.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Necessity itself may constitute an explanation: why it exists needs no answer if non-existence is metaphysically impossible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Van Inwagen's argument targets agent causation and control, not modal facts; necessary truths differ categorically.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Brute facts and necessary facts are distinct categories; necessity may ground explanation even without external cause.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Van Inwagen's consequence argument shows that if determinism is false, free will requires that some facts lack prior determining causes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Necessary existence entails that nothing external could have caused or explained the pluriverse's existence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If a fact admits no further explanation, it is brute; necessary existence precludes explanatory regress.
?
How convincing is this?
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.