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
    A categorical cumulative argument for a miracle claim dep... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A categorical cumulative argument for a miracle claim depends on the overall balance of natural theology and atheological arguments such as the problem of evil

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A categorical miracle argument concludes that P(M|E) > 0.5, where E is the sum of relevant evidence
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The probability of a miracle is sensitive to the probability that God exists
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The probability that God exists is assessed via natural theology and atheological arguments including the problem of evil
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's 'Of Miracles' establishes that testimony-based miracle arguments are self-contained inductive contests requiring no prior theistic framework to assess evidential weight.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.John Earman's critique in 'Hume's Abject Failure' demonstrates that probabilistic miracle arguments can be constructed using only background empirical regularities, bypassing natural theology entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If miracle probability assessments are epistemically tractable without resolving prior theistic probability, then the problem of evil and natural theology are contingent rather than necessary inputs to the cumulative case.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Swinburne argues that miracle testimony can itself serve as evidence for God's existence, making the relationship between theism and miracles mutually reinforcing rather than unidirectional.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If miracle evidence partially grounds theism rather than merely depending on it, then P(M|E) cannot be cleanly conditionalized on prior theistic probability without circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Related

    A categorical miracle argument concludes that P(M|E) > 0.5, where E is the sum o...Hume's 'Of Miracles' establishes that testimony-based miracle arguments are self...If miracle evidence partially grounds theism rather than merely depending on it,...If miracle probability assessments are epistemically tractable without resolving...
    +4 moreShow less
    John Earman's critique in 'Hume's Abject Failure' demonstrates that probabilisti...Swinburne argues that miracle testimony can itself serve as evidence for God's e...The probability of a miracle is sensitive to the probability that God existsThe probability that God exists is assessed via natural theology and atheologica...

    Similar

    A categorical miracle argument concludes that P(M|E) > 0.5, where E is...79%The probability that God exists is assessed via natural theology and a...78%The argument against miracles treats 'all testimony' as if it were uni...75%Bayesian reasoning requires that the posterior probability of a miracl...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: miracles
    View source passageHide passage
    The evaluation of a serious cumulative argument for a particular miracle claim requires the consideration of historical details that go beyond the bounds of philosophy as a discipline (McGrew and McGrew 2009). But some general points regarding its structure are of philosophical interest. If the argument is categorical, then its conclusion is (at least) that, where “\(E\)” stands for the sum of the relevant evidence, \(P(M\mid E) \gt 0.5\). But where “\(G\)” stands for “God exists” (where “God” i
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit