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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Proponents of the fine-tuning argument for design may motivate a non-negligible ur-prior P(D) by appealing to a priori arguments for God's existence such as the ontological argument

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant demonstrated that existence is not a predicate, undermining the ontological argument's inference from conceivability to actuality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the a priori argument fails to establish even prima facie probability of God's existence, it cannot supply the non-negligible ur-prior P(D) required by the fine-tuning framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A fine-tuning argument that depends on the success of the ontological argument inherits its burden of proof without gaining independent evidential support.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The ontological argument's validity is itself deeply contested, making it an unstable foundation for assigning non-negligible priors to theism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bootstrapping a Bayesian prior from a disputed a priori argument imports all controversies of that argument into the fine-tuning inference, compounding rather than resolving epistemic uncertainty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A priori arguments for God's existence do not rely on empirical facts that entail conditions right for life
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The ur-probability framework permits background evidence that does not entail the existence of life
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42