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 One can support premises (2) and (3) by appealing to the principle that the probability of r given q is equal to one if and only if q entails r.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Probabilistic entailment admits of degrees: Carnap's inductive logic shows P(r|q)=1 can hold without strict deductive entailment via confirmation theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If analytic probabilistic relationships suffice for P(r|q)=1, the biconditional conflates logical and epistemic probability, undermining Rowe's inference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Plantinga's free will defense shows God-plus-background-knowledge may analytically exclude certain evils, making P(no-justifying-good|God)=1 without strict entailment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If modal or analytic truths about omnipotence generate probability-1 claims non-deductively, the biconditional 'iff q entails r' is too restrictive a criterion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The existence of God is neither a logically necessary truth nor entailed by our background knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The existence of God together with our background knowledge does not logically entail that no good that we know of justifies an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being in permitting E1 and E2.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The probability of r given q is equal to one if and only if q entails r.
      ?

      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.