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
    Alston's argument that we have no well-grounded probabili... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→P disconfirms G in the sense of lowering the probability of G.

    Alston's argument that we have no well-grounded probability distribution over divine reasons entails that Bayesian disconfirmation claims here are formally ungrounded.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Bayesian confirmation requires precise prior probabilities over hypotheses. Without grounded priors, posterior calculations lack epistemic warrant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Divine reasons are fundamentally inscrutable to humans, making any probability distribution over them epistemically arbitrary rather than justified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Alston correctly identifies that theological claims uniquely resist the empirical constraints that ground probability assignments in other domains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Disconfirmation claims require only comparative likelihoods between hypotheses, not absolute probability distributions—a weaker requirement Alston's argument ignores.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even under radical uncertainty about divine reasons, we can assign rough credences based on logical consistency and coherence without full grounding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Alston conflates 'no single well-grounded distribution' with 'no formal justification,' but robustness across multiple priors may still warrant disconfirmation.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Problem of Evil1 linked

    Related

    Alston conflates 'no single well-grounded distribution' with 'no formal justific...Alston correctly identifies that theological claims uniquely resist the empirica...Bayesian confirmation requires precise prior probabilities over hypotheses. With...Disconfirmation claims require only comparative likelihoods between hypotheses, ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Divine reasons are fundamentally inscrutable to humans, making any probability d...Even under radical uncertainty about divine reasons, we can assign rough credenc...P disconfirms G in the sense of lowering the probability of G.

    Details

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