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 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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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