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 Postulating God's existence to bridge this gap commits the wishful-thinking fallacy: deriving metaphysical conclusions from practical desiderata rather than evidence.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Identifying *why* someone finds a hypothesis attractive doesn't prove the hypothesis false—motivation and truth are logically independent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Theists argue God explains actual phenomena (cosmology, consciousness, morality); God-belief rests on these evidential arguments, not mere desire.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The charge assumes non-believers lack desires; secular worldviews also fulfill practical desiderata (meaning without transcendence), yet aren't dismissed as fallacious.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Inference to best explanation requires empirical evidence; non-evidential desires cannot justify metaphysical claims about reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.History shows wishful thinking (alchemy, phrenology) produces unfalsifiable claims; God-hypotheses often resist empirical testing similarly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If we permit desire-based reasoning for God, consistency demands accepting equally ungrounded conclusions from others' competing desires.
      ?

      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.