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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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