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 What sufficiently causes or fully adequately explains the existence of contingent beings must include a non-contingent (necessary) being, and therefore a necessary being exists.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.An infinite regress of contingent causes, each explaining the next, constitutes a formally complete explanatory structure requiring no terminus.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.P5 assumes without justification that explanatory completeness requires a non-regressive foundation, which Hume's Dialogues Part IX explicitly denies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If each contingent being in an infinite series is explained by its predecessor, the series as a whole need not have an explanation beyond its members.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The concept of a 'necessary being' whose non-existence is impossible is either analytically vacuous or smuggles existence into essence, as Kant argued in CPR A592/B620.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If necessity is a logical property of propositions rather than an ontological property of beings, then P4's category of 'non-contingent being' is incoherent as stated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed) exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.All contingent beings have a sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for their existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for the existence of contingent beings is something other than the contingent being itself.
      ?

      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.