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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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