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
    Swinburne's own framework concedes that background theist... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The most promising defense of criteriological criteria is that the criteria effectively rule out explanations other than the truth of the claim

    Swinburne's own framework concedes that background theistic probability is required before miracle-testimony can be truth-tracking.

    ?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.Swinburne's Bayesian framework requires P(H) as prior; without background theistic probability, testimony cannot update beliefs toward miracles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Miracle-testimony only tracks truth if the hypothesis space includes God as a live possibility; naturalism-by-default blocks this entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Swinburne explicitly argues prior probability of theism affects likelihood ratios; low priors make even strong testimony insufficient for belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Swinburne distinguishes intrinsic testimony probability from background assumptions; testimony quality can be high-truth-tracking independently.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Prior probability and truth-tracking are separate properties; testimony can reliably indicate what occurred even if prior odds seem unfavorable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Swinburne argues sufficient testimony evidence can overcome low priors; the framework permits miracle-belief without antecedent theistic commitment.
      ?

      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

    Natural Theology1 linked

    Related

    Miracle-testimony only tracks truth if the hypothesis space includes God as a li...Prior probability and truth-tracking are separate properties; testimony can reli...Swinburne argues sufficient testimony evidence can overcome low priors; the fram...Swinburne distinguishes intrinsic testimony probability from background assumpti...
    +3 moreShow less
    Swinburne explicitly argues prior probability of theism affects likelihood ratio...Swinburne's Bayesian framework requires P(H) as prior; without background theist...The most promising defense of criteriological criteria is that the criteria effe...

    Details

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