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 cosmological argument should be constructed i... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Swinburne's cosmological argument should be constructed inductively rather than deductively

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The PSR, when used to construct a deductive cosmological argument, leads to a logically necessary being that cannot explain logically contingent existence
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bayes' Theorem provides a valid basis for inductive argumentation in confirmation theory
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz and Clarke's deductive cosmological arguments succeed precisely because necessary existence is not a contingent empirical hypothesis subject to probabilistic confirmation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Inductive inference to a personal God via Bayes' Theorem presupposes a well-defined reference class of universes, which does not exist and renders prior probability assignments arbitrary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aquinas's Third Way demonstrates that a deductive argument from contingency to necessary being avoids the regress problem without invoking probabilistic reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Swinburne's inductive framing reduces God's existence to a hypothesis that is in principle falsifiable, which conflicts with classical theism's commitment to divine necessity as a non-empirical truth.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Related

    Aquinas's Third Way demonstrates that a deductive argument from contingency to n...Bayes' Theorem provides a valid basis for inductive argumentation in confirmatio...Inductive inference to a personal God via Bayes' Theorem presupposes a well-defi...Leibniz and Clarke's deductive cosmological arguments succeed precisely because ...
    +2 moreShow less
    Swinburne's inductive framing reduces God's existence to a hypothesis that is in...The PSR, when used to construct a deductive cosmological argument, leads to a lo...

    Similar

    The Causal Principle underlies the deductive cosmological argument89%The respective premises of deductive cosmological arguments have the i...84%The PSR, when used to construct a deductive cosmological argument, lea...84%God's necessity is made possible on explanatory grounds (the cosmologi...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: cosmological-argument
    View source passageHide passage
    Swinburne notes that “a cosmological argument argues that the fact that there is a universe needs explaining” (2004: 9–10). However, he emphasizes that his approach differs from those we have already considered in that he rejects the Principle of Sufficient Reason understood as “everything not ‘metaphysically necessary’ has an explanation in something ‘metaphysically necessary’” (2004: 148), for the PSR leads, as it does in Leibniz, to a being that is logically necessary, and such a being cannot
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit