Method and sources
Web of Belief reports relationships among exact statements you mark as true. It does not infer a complete worldview or assign a consistency score.
How it works technically
1. Your selectionsResponses are held in browser memory for this page only.
2. Explicit rulesCustom TypeScript code checks only statements marked "I believe this" against reviewed relationships.
3. ExplanationsEach result names the beliefs used, its reasoning, and supporting sources.
There is no Z3 solver, AI inference call, database, account, or server-side scoring in this version.
Example: Affirming both that at least one moral fact is independent of approval and that every moral truth depends only on approval.
Rule: Reported only where the precise affirmed sentences negate one another or cannot both hold under their stated definitions.
Example: Affirming both that no deity exists and that every moral obligation is true solely because God commands it — which together entail that nothing is obligatory.
Rule: Surfaced when affirmed statements (sometimes with one clearly stated bridge) validly entail a further conclusion you may not have meant to accept. It is not a contradiction, but a commitment to notice.
Example: Affirming both a perfectly loving personal God and nonresistant nonbelief.
Rule: The result states the additional bridge premise needed to infer an incompatibility and treats its truth as open for examination.
Example: Affirming both atheism and objective meaning through finite worthwhile activity.
Rule: Surfaced when the pairing is often rhetorically challenged but is represented by a recognized philosophical position.
A SAT or SMT tool such as Z3 can correctly find inconsistency after propositions and implications have been formalized. The hard part here is whether a natural-language commitment entails a bridge premise: for example, whether perfect love entails unmistakable divine availability, or whether responsibility needs alternate possibilities. Those are disputed philosophical questions, not solver failures. This app therefore keeps a small inspectable rule set and exposes each premise instead of disguising interpretation as proof.
The initial domains were selected from the official PhilPapers 2020 Survey, which surveyed philosophers on 100 questions, including God, meta-ethics, meaning of life, mind, free will, and eating animals. Public importance of religious-worldview questions is checked against Pew Research Center's 2023-24 Religious Landscape Study. These sources justify salience; they do not determine which answer is correct.
Source review completed May 27, 2026. Position summaries in the checker are paraphrases; follow the original entries for full arguments and bibliographies.
PhilPeople / PhilPapers
Topic selection: its 100 questions include God, meta-ethics, meaning, mind, free will, trolley cases, and eating animals.
Pew Research Center
Public relevance: a large United States survey about religious affiliation, belief in God, and social views.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Distinguishes lacking belief, asserting that no gods exist, and suspension of judgment.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Surveys arguments from contingency, explanation, and beginnings to a necessary or divine cause, with objections.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Explains arguments relating moral normativity or dignity to God and their contested premises.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Maps logical and evidential arguments from suffering and theistic defenses or theodicies.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Presents the argument from nonresistant nonbelief and theistic responses.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Examines divine-command accounts of obligation and Euthyphro-style concerns.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Defines mind-independent moral realism and several ways of denying it.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Surveys supernaturalist, objective naturalist, subjective, hybrid, and nihilist views of meaning.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Introduces alternative-possibilities, sourcehood, responsibility, and theological issues.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Defends and challenges accounts on which determinism and responsible agency can coexist.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Surveys theological fatalism and compatibilist responses.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Defines physicalist completeness and addresses consciousness objections.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Covers mental/physical distinction and arguments from consciousness.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Reviews sentience, personhood, interests, and food-choice implications.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Defines the view that rightness depends only on outcomes, and its main objections.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Presents agent-relative constraints on which some acts are wrong even when they maximize the good.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Covers evidentialism (Locke, Clifford) and reformed-epistemology replies about belief in God.
Answers stay in browser memory for the current page and are not sent to a server by this application. The share action copies counts only. Results are invitations to revisit reasons, never judgments of intelligence, character, or identity.