Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Therefore, criteriological criteria systematically underdetermine the supernatural conclusion even when they succeed by their own standards.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If criteria succeed by their own standards, they've done their epistemic job; underdetermination is a general problem, not specific to supernatural claims.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Some naturalistic theories face equal or worse underdetermination problems, so this objection unfairly targets supernatural inference.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Practical inference often requires accepting the best available explanation even amid theoretical underdetermination.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Natural explanations can always be extended or refined to account for phenomena criteria deem supernatural.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Meeting internal criteriological standards doesn't exclude competing naturalistic hypotheses from remaining viable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The gap between 'best current explanation' and 'supernatural' cannot be closed by criteria alone without additional metaphysical assumptions.
?
How convincing is this?
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.