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
    Without independent justification for S5 over weaker syst... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The prime task for the philosophical theist is to demonstrate that God is not impossible.

    Without independent justification for S5 over weaker systems like S4 or B, Hartshorne's ontological argument begs the question by embedding the controversial inference in its modal assumptions.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Key Terms

    Charles Hartshorne(the philosopher whose argument is being critiqued)
    A 20th-century American philosopher who developed a version of the ontological argument using modern logic and philosophy of religion.
    Embedding an inference(how the argument allegedly tricks readers)
    Hiding a questionable logical step inside your basic assumptions so people don't notice you're using it.
    S5, S4, B (modal systems)(the technical systems being compared)
    Different formal rule-sets for reasoning about possibility and necessity; S5 is the strongest (most permissive) while S4 and B are weaker, meaning they allow fewer conclusions.
    begging the question(Listed alongside equivocation as an example of a fallacy that highlights important issues in real-life arguing)
    A fallacy also known as circular reasoning

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    independent justification(Epistemology of justification transmission)
    Justification that appears intuitively independent of the original justification for a proposition q; more precisely, transmitted justification for q that is additional and independent when three counterfactual conditions are met: the subject was already justified in believing q before acquiring the new evidence, remains justified during acquisition, and would have gained a first-time justification via transmission had no prior justification existed
    modal(in logic and metaphysics)
    Dealing with possibility and necessity—questions about what could be true, what must be true, and what's merely contingent (could go either way).
    ontological argument(Described as an early and now-canonical formulation found in Anselm's Proslogion.)
    An argument that seeks to demonstrate God's existence from the concept or definition of God alone, without appeal to empirical evidence.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Natural Theology1 linked

    Related

    The prime task for the philosophical theist is to demonstrate that God is not im...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective