Alvin Plantinga's own free will defense presupposes that creatures can be so constituted that no sequence of circumstances guarantees their cooperation, which directly undermines the probabilistic convergence argument.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
Assumes something to be true without proving it—like how an argument might presuppose that logic works, without first arguing that logic is valid.
Probabilistic convergence argument(the competing argument being criticized)
A reasoning strategy claiming that if you have enough chances or circumstances pushing someone toward an action, eventually the odds guarantee they'll do it—like how flipping a coin enough times guarantees you'll eventually get heads.
Sequence of circumstances(describing what might force someone to act a certain way)
A chain of events or conditions that happen one after another in a cause-and-effect pattern.
cooperation(Framing of Hobbes' Leviathan via Sidgwick's question)
A central theme in both ethics and social-political philosophy, examined in the context of how it can emerge among self-interested individuals
undermines(as used in argumentation)
Weakens or damages something by removing support for it or showing it doesn't work.