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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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