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
    An argument for criteriological criteria cannot proceed w... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    An argument for criteriological criteria cannot proceed wholly a priori

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • There is no necessary connection between an event satisfying the criteria and the event's claim being true
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz and Kant demonstrate that synthetic a priori knowledge establishes necessary structural conditions for empirical inquiry itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Criteria for identifying genuine miracles function as transcendental conditions, not empirical generalizations, and are thus immune to a posteriori contingency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If criteriology operates at the level of conceptual preconditions rather than observation, the absence of necessary connection is insufficient to rule out a priori grounding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Alvin Plantinga's reformed epistemology holds that certain warrant-conferring faculties deliver non-inferential justification independent of empirical confirmation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If basic beliefs about divine action can be properly basic, then criteria derived from such beliefs inherit their a priori justificatory structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim that criteriology requires empirical grounding presupposes a foundationalism that Plantinga's internalism-externalism debate has rendered philosophically contested.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Related

    Alvin Plantinga's reformed epistemology holds that certain warrant-conferring fa...Criteria for identifying genuine miracles function as transcendental conditions,...If basic beliefs about divine action can be properly basic, then criteria derive...If criteriology operates at the level of conceptual preconditions rather than ob...
    +3 moreShow less
    Leibniz and Kant demonstrate that synthetic a priori knowledge establishes neces...The claim that criteriology requires empirical grounding presupposes a foundatio...There is no necessary connection between an event satisfying the criteria and th...

    Similar

    A purely a priori defense of the criteria is unavailable83%The most promising defense of criteriological criteria is that the cri...82%A priori arguments for God's existence do not rely on empirical facts ...77%Monotheism is more in accord with a priori reason than dualism73%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: miracles
    View source passageHide passage
    In assessing a criteriological argument, we need to ask not only whether the event in question meets the criteria but also whether the criteria themselves are good indicators of truth. An argument for the criteria that Leslie gives cannot proceed wholly a priori, since there is not a necessary connection between an event’s satisfying the criteria and its being true. In this case, perhaps the most promising approach would be to argue that the criteria effectively rule out explanations other than
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit