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
    The existence of God is more probable than not (P-inducti... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The existence of God is more probable than not (P-inductive cumulative case)

    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 existence of the universe provides some evidence for God's existence
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The orderliness of the universe provides some evidence for God's existence
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The existence of consciousness provides some evidence for God's existence
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Each purported evidence strand (cosmological, teleological, experiential) is independently explicable by naturalistic hypotheses without invoking God.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When multiple weak arguments each fail to independently establish their conclusion, their conjunction does not exceed the probability threshold—Mackie's 'accumulation of failures' objection applies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A cumulative case requires that the evidential strands be genuinely independent, but theistic arguments share circular background assumptions that inflate apparent convergence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The prior probability of a being with infinite or maximal properties is, on Bayesian grounds, extremely low, as Sobel and Oppy argue regarding the intrinsic improbability of such a stipulated entity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Negative evidence—gratuitous suffering, religious diversity, divine hiddenness—constitutes counter-evidence that, when added to the cumulative calculus, plausibly outweighs the positive strands Mitchell and Swinburne cite.
      ?

      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

    A cumulative case requires that the evidential strands be genuinely independent,...Each purported evidence strand (cosmological, teleological, experiential) is ind...Miracle reports provide some evidence for God's existenceNegative evidence—gratuitous suffering, religious diversity, divine hiddenness—c...
    +7 moreShow less
    Religious experience provides some evidence for God's existenceThe existence of consciousness provides some evidence for God's existenceThe existence of the universe provides some evidence for God's existenceThe orderliness of the universe provides some evidence for God's existenceThe prior probability of a being with infinite or maximal properties is, on Baye...These independent lines of evidence combine into a cumulative case that makes Go...When multiple weak arguments each fail to independently establish their conclusi...

    Similar

    These independent lines of evidence combine into a cumulative case tha...85%Pascal's Wager presupposes that one should have a probability for God'...78%Theism is very probably false, even when the evidence for God's existe...76%God is really possible (i.e., God's existence involves no contradictio...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: cosmological-argument
    View source passageHide passage
    In place of a deductive argument, Swinburne develops an inductive cosmological argument that appeals to the inference to the best explanation. Swinburne distinguishes between two varieties of inductive arguments: those that show that the conclusion is more probable than not (what he terms a correct P-inductive argument) and those that further increase the probability of the conclusion (what he terms a correct C-inductive argument). In The Existence of God (1979) he presents a cosmological argume
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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