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 An argument for criteriological criteria cannot proceed wholly a priori

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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