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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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