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
    Theism is very probably false, even when the evidence for... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Theism is very probably false, even when the evidence for God's existence is ambiguous or absent

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God would have sufficient reason and ability to provide clear, universal evidence of its existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The actual epistemic situation—widespread reasonable non-belief across cultures and history—is precisely what we would expect if no such God exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The silence of a God who could speak is stronger evidence against theism than mere absence of evidence, as Schellenberg's divine hiddenness argument establishes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Swinburne's own inductive framework assigns theism low prior probability because postulating an infinite mind is a radical departure from parsimonious ontology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Parsimony principles (Occam's Razor) favor naturalism over theism when both hypotheses account equally well for ambiguous evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When a complex hypothesis and a simpler rival are evidentially tied, Bayesian epistemology mandates assigning higher posterior probability to the simpler rival.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Theism starts out with a very low prior (intrinsic) probability before any evidence is considered
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ambiguous or absent evidence has no effect on the prior probability of a hypothesis
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the posterior (all-things-considered) probability of theism remains very low
      ?

      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 TheologyProblem of Evil

    Connections

    2 topics

    Skepticism3 linkedTruth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    Ambiguous or absent evidence has no effect on the prior probability of a hypothe...An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God would have sufficient reason and a...Parsimony principles (Occam's Razor) favor naturalism over theism when both hypo...Swinburne's own inductive framework assigns theism low prior probability because...
    +5 moreShow less
    The actual epistemic situation—widespread reasonable non-belief across cultures ...The silence of a God who could speak is stronger evidence against theism than me...Theism starts out with a very low prior (intrinsic) probability before any evide...

    Similar

    The absence of convincing evidence for God's existence is a good reaso...90%The evidence for God's existence is lacking89%God is really possible (i.e., God's existence involves no contradictio...85%It is possible that God does not exist.85%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: atheism-agnosticism
    View source passageHide passage
    The basic idea behind the low priors argument is that, even if the agnostic is right that, when it comes to God’s existence, the evidence is ambiguous or absent altogether, what follows is not that theism has a middling probability all things considered, but instead that theism is very probably false. This is said to follow because theism starts out with a very low probability before taking into account any evidence. (“Evidence” in this context refers to factors extrinsic to a hypothesis that ra
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Therefore, the posterior (all-things-considered) probability of theism remains v...
    When a complex hypothesis and a simpler rival are evidentially tied, Bayesian ep...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit