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 The absence of convincing evidence for God's existence is a good reason to believe that God does not exist

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Whenever assuming a positive existential claim is true would lead one to expect grounds for its truth, the absence of such grounds is a good reason to believe the claim is false
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A God would be likely to provide convincing evidence of Her existence
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.There is an absence of such convincing evidence
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bayesian epistemology holds that rational belief update requires proportioning credence to available evidence, not hypothetical future evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a maximally powerful being exists, Its causal reach extends to all empirically accessible domains, making Its absence from evidence epistemically significant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.J.L. Schellenberg's argument from divine hiddenness shows a perfectly loving God would ensure sufficient evidence exists for any sincere seeker, yet such evidence is absent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Russell's teapot principle establishes that the burden of proof lies with those asserting existence of undetected entities, not with those withholding assent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Unlike other undetected entities, God is stipulated to be omnipresent and causally active in the natural world, making the evidential silence especially probative.
      ?

      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.