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
    Probabilistic arguments establish epistemic conclusions a... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Even if the evidential argument from evil is sound, its conclusion is not really significant.

    Probabilistic arguments establish epistemic conclusions about rational credence, not metaphysical conclusions about God's existence.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Probabilistic arguments use inductive reasoning, which can only justify degrees of belief, not metaphysical truths about reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rational credence reflects epistemic justification relative to evidence, while metaphysical claims require ontological status independent of observers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even if God's existence has high posterior probability given evidence, this describes rational confidence, not God's actual metaphysical nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If a probabilistic argument gives us rational credence of 0.99 in God's existence, denying this affects God's actual existence is metaphysically confused.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinction between epistemic conclusions and metaphysical truth is artificial—justified credence tracks what's actually the case about reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Successful probabilistic arguments about empirical matters (disease diagnosis, quantum events) do establish metaphysical conclusions, not merely epistemic ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Problem of Evil1 linked

    Related

    Even if God's existence has high posterior probability given evidence, this desc...Even if the evidential argument from evil is sound, its conclusion is not really...If a probabilistic argument gives us rational credence of 0.99 in God's existenc...Probabilistic arguments use inductive reasoning, which can only justify degrees ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Rational credence reflects epistemic justification relative to evidence, while m...Successful probabilistic arguments about empirical matters (disease diagnosis, q...The distinction between epistemic conclusions and metaphysical truth is artifici...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit