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 Assumption (1), as interpreted by Rowe, is eminently reasonable.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rowe's interpretation of P smuggles in an epistemic limitation by defining P relative to 'known goods', making the entailment trivially true by definitional fiat rather than substantive metaphysical necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A proposition that is made true by definitional construction rather than by the nature of reality cannot serve as a genuinely 'reasonable' empirical premise in an inductive argument against theism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Stephen Wykstra's CORNEA principle establishes that we can only claim Pr(P | not-G) = 1 if we have sufficient cognitive access to the range of goods an omniscient being could perceive, which we demonstrably lack.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Given the vast disproportion between human and divine cognition, our inability to identify a justifying good for E1 and E2 provides negligible evidential support that no such good exists, undermining the 'eminently reasonable' characterization.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.For any two propositions q and r, if q entails r then Pr(r | q) = 1.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rowe interprets P in such a way that not-G entails P, since he interprets P as saying that it is not the case that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being together with some known good that justifies that being in allowing E1 and E2.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Since not-G entails P, Pr(P | not-G) = 1, which is what assumption (1) states.
      ?

      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.