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 Multiple inductive arguments together may provide substantial support for theistic belief

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Multiple arguments sharing a common background assumption (theism) cannot treat each other as independent confirming evidence without circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bayesian convergence requires evidential independence; arguments drawing on the same theistic prior inflate apparent confirmation artificially.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.C.D. Broad and later Elliott Sober showed that cumulative case arguments conflate correlated evidence with genuinely additive probabilistic support.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Each phenomenon cited as theistic evidence (consciousness, fine-tuning, morality) admits rival naturalistic explanations that also accumulate cumulatively.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A cumulative case for naturalism built from the same phenomena can match or exceed the theistic cumulative case, undermining its special probative force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Paul Draper's 'hypothesis of indifference' demonstrates that naturalistic hypotheses can systematically absorb the same evidential base without residual theistic surplus.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.There are several phenomena that each seem more probable in a theistic universe than in a godless universe
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It becomes increasingly improbable that all such phenomena would occur in the absence of God as more such phenomena are identified
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Arguments that individually fall short of demonstrating theism is likely true can jointly constitute substantial evidence
      ?

      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.