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
    Stephen Wykstra's CORNEA principle establishes that we ca... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Assumption (1), as interpreted by Rowe, is eminently reasonable.

    Stephen Wykstra's CORNEA principle establishes that we can only claim Pr(P | not-G) = 1 if we have sufficient cognitive access to the range of goods an omniscient being could perceive, which we demonstrably lack.

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

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Key Terms

    CORNEA principle(Wykstra's main argument)
    A rule of logic that says we shouldn't claim something is definitely true unless we have good access to all the information needed to judge it—the acronym stands for 'Cognitive Relative Epistemic Noseeum'.
    Cognitive access(as something humans lack regarding God's reasons)
    The ability of your mind to reach, understand, or be aware of something; having the mental capacity to grasp an idea.
    Omniscient(describing God's knowledge)
    Knowing everything—all facts, all truths, and all events (past, present, and future).
    Pr(P | not-G)(the logical notation in the argument)
    Mathematical shorthand meaning 'the probability that P is true given that G is false'—it's how philosophers write out conditional statements using probability.
    Stephen Wykstra

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    (as a key figure in skeptical theism)
    A contemporary philosopher who defends religious belief by arguing that we shouldn't expect to understand all of God's reasons for allowing suffering.
    the problem of evil(Contemporary philosophical terminology)
    The family of issues raised by the question of why pain, moral wickedness, and varieties of imperfection exist if a perfectly good and all-powerful God alone created everything in the universe.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Problem of Evil1 linked

    Related

    Assumption (1), as interpreted by Rowe, is eminently reasonable.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective