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
    The most promising defense of criteriological criteria is... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The most promising defense of criteriological criteria is that the criteria effectively rule out explanations other than the truth of the claim

    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.A purely a priori defense of the criteria is unavailable
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The criteria must be shown to be good indicators of truth
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ruling out competing explanations would establish the criteria as good indicators of truth
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ruling out known competing explanations does not establish criteria as truth-indicators when unknown naturalistic explanations remain possible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hume's argument in the Enquiry establishes that our inductive base for naturalistic explanations always outweighs evidence for singular violations of natural law.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, criteriological criteria systematically underdetermine the supernatural conclusion even when they succeed by their own standards.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Swinburne's own framework concedes that background theistic probability is required before miracle-testimony can be truth-tracking.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Criteriological criteria that presuppose no prior theological commitments cannot themselves supply the prior probability needed to rule out naturalistic alternatives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Criteria that require external theoretical support to do their evidential work are not independently sufficient indicators of 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

    A purely a priori defense of the criteria is unavailableCriteria that require external theoretical support to do their evidential work a...Criteriological criteria that presuppose no prior theological commitments cannot...Hume's argument in the Enquiry establishes that our inductive base for naturalis...
    +5 moreShow less
    Ruling out competing explanations would establish the criteria as good indicator...Ruling out known competing explanations does not establish criteria as truth-ind...Swinburne's own framework concedes that background theistic probability is requi...The criteria must be shown to be good indicators of truthTherefore, criteriological criteria systematically underdetermine the supernatur...

    Similar

    An argument for criteriological criteria cannot proceed wholly a prior...82%Ruling out competing explanations would establish the criteria as good...79%Simplicity is not always a reliable criterion for determining which hy...79%A purely a priori defense of the criteria is unavailable76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: miracles
    View source passageHide passage
    In assessing a criteriological argument, we need to ask not only whether the event in question meets the criteria but also whether the criteria themselves are good indicators of truth. An argument for the criteria that Leslie gives cannot proceed wholly a priori, since there is not a necessary connection between an event’s satisfying the criteria and its being true. In this case, perhaps the most promising approach would be to argue that the criteria effectively rule out explanations other than
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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