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 Pascal's God — conceived as absolutely perfect — should be assigned higher probability than conceptions of rival Gods.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Swinburne's own simplicity criterion favors a God of zero specific finite properties, but 'absolute perfection' bundles multiple maximized properties (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence), each requiring independent justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A maximally simple deity — one with a single, undifferentiated attribute — would score higher on Occam's razor than a being requiring the coherent co-instantiation of multiple distinct perfections.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the simplicity argument underdetermines Pascal's God specifically and may favor rival minimal-attribute conceptions over the Anselmian maximum.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mackie and Sobel demonstrated that 'absolute perfection' is not a coherent single predicate but a placeholder that collapses under the logical incompatibility of its constituent omni-properties (e.g., omniscience vs. libertarian freedom).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A hypothesis riddled with internal incoherence cannot be assigned higher prior probability than coherent rival conceptions, regardless of its apparent simplicity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rival Gods defined by fewer, mutually consistent attributes (e.g., Aristotle's Unmoved Mover) therefore carry higher probability by virtue of their coherence, not lower probability by virtue of their specificity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.In science, when multiple theories fit observed data equally well, we favor the simplest theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Simplicity considerations apply analogously to theological hypotheses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A conception of God as 'absolutely perfect' is the simplest theological conception because it implies all other predicates traditionally ascribed to God.
      ?

      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.