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 proposition that is made true by definitional construction rather than by the nature of reality cannot serve as a genuinely 'reasonable' empirical premise in an inductive argument against theism.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Many empirical premises about observation involve definitional elements (e.g., 'water is H2O') yet remain legitimate inductive evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinction between 'definitional' and 'nature of reality' is unclear: definitions often encode discovered facts about how things actually are.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even if a premise is partly definitional, it can still carry empirical content and constrain which theistic models are coherent or plausible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Inductive arguments gain empirical force only from premises about actual world features, not from what language or definitions stipulate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A premise true by definition cannot falsify any substantive hypothesis, including theism, because it excludes no possible reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Using definitional truths as empirical premises commits a category error, treating conceptual necessities as evidence about contingent facts.
      ?

      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.