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 Omni-theism is no more probable intrinsically than aesthetic deism.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Swinburne's challenge to aesthetic deism succeeds only if merely believing that an action is good entails a desire to do that action (motivational intellectualism).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On most theories of motivation, there is a logical gap between the intellect and desire.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If such a gap exists, omni-theism faces the same problem as aesthetic deism in explaining why an omniscient being acts on what it knows to be best.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On Humean motivational theory, even omniscience cannot guarantee action without a corresponding desire, making omni-theism's explanatory gap equal to aesthetic deism's.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Swinburne's inference from omniscience to benevolent action presupposes internalist moral realism, which is itself contested and cannot be assumed in prior probability assessments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without an independent argument for divine conativism, omni-theism and aesthetic deism are symmetrically incomplete as explanations of why a perfect being would create anything.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason, applied consistently, demands explanation for why a necessary being actualizes this world rather than none, a burden omni-theism shares with deism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aesthetic deism posits a creator motivated by beauty rather than moral goodness, but Iris Murdoch's account treats goodness and beauty as co-convergent transcendentals, eliminating the asymmetry Swinburne needs.
      ?

      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.