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 cosmological argument should be constructed inductively rather than deductively

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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