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 There is at least some non-zero probability that God does not exist, given our background knowledge (premise 2 holds).

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If God is a maximally perfect being, God's existence is either necessary or impossible, leaving no probabilistic middle ground.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Alvin Plantinga's modal ontological argument establishes that if God is possible, God exists in all possible worlds, making non-existence have probability zero.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore P4 is false: God's existence being a necessary truth is precisely what classical theism and modal logic jointly entail.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Richard Swinburne argues background knowledge itself includes the fine-tuned existence of a universe, which raises the posterior probability of God toward certainty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If background knowledge inductively entails God's existence with probability approaching 1, then P(~God | background knowledge) converges to zero without requiring strict logical entailment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.P4's claim that background knowledge does not entail God's existence conflates deductive entailment with overwhelming inductive support, making the premise too narrow.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Only necessarily false propositions have a probability equal to zero.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The probability of God not existing given background knowledge can be zero only if the conjunction of God's non-existence and background knowledge is necessarily false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.That conjunction is necessarily false only if God's existence is a necessary truth or background knowledge entails God's existence.
      ?

      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.