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
    If miracle evidence partially grounds theism rather than ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A categorical cumulative argument for a miracle claim depends on the overall balance of natural theology and atheological arguments such as the problem of evil

    If miracle evidence partially grounds theism rather than merely depending on it, then P(M|E) cannot be cleanly conditionalized on prior theistic probability without circularity.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Bayesian conditioning assumes prior and likelihood factors are conceptually independent; miracle evidence partly constituting theism violates this independence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If theism's truth partially explains why miracles occur, then P(M|E) inherently references theistic content, making prior P(T) unavoidably embedded in likelihood calculation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Standard Bayesianism requires factors grounding conclusions to be analytically separable; partial grounding creates explanatory entanglement preventing clean separation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Partial grounding need not violate probabilistic independence; a factor can both ground a conclusion and remain probabilistically distinct for conditioning purposes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.P(M|E) represents likelihood under theistic hypothesis; that theism explains miracles doesn't require prior P(T) to enter the conditional probability calculation itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Many successful Bayesian models condition on dependent variables without circularity; formal independence assumptions differ from conceptual grounding relations.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Natural Theology1 linked

    Related

    A categorical cumulative argument for a miracle claim depends on the overall bal...Bayesian conditioning assumes prior and likelihood factors are conceptually inde...If theism's truth partially explains why miracles occur, then P(M|E) inherently ...Many successful Bayesian models condition on dependent variables without circula...
    +3 moreShow less
    P(M|E) represents likelihood under theistic hypothesis; that theism explains mir...Partial grounding need not violate probabilistic independence; a factor can both...Standard Bayesianism requires factors grounding conclusions to be analytically s...

    Details

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