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 Proponents of the fine-tuning argument for design may motivate a non-negligible ur-prior P(D) by appealing to the cosmological argument

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The cosmological argument, if successful, establishes a necessary being whose nature already determines whether life-permitting conditions obtain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A designer whose existence is necessary cannot coherently generate a non-negligible ur-prior for design without collapsing into a version of the ontological argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Combining the cosmological and fine-tuning arguments therefore risks circular probabilistic reasoning, not independent evidential support.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Swinburne and Sobel demonstrate that classical cosmological arguments presuppose a creator with specific attributes like simplicity or perfect goodness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.These presupposed divine attributes already prejudge the likelihood of life-permitting conditions, making P(D) non-independent of P(life|D).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Using the cosmological argument to motivate P(D) therefore violates the ur-prior framework's requirement that background evidence be evidentially prior to the explanandum.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The cosmological argument appeals only to very general empirical facts
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The cosmological argument does not entail that conditions are right for life
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.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.