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 Therefore the claim that miracle evidence must always fail a fixed evidential threshold confuses a static prior with the dynamic output of proper probabilistic inference.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Even under Bayesian updating, the prior against miracles remains epistemically justified by lawlike regularity of nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.No finite evidence can overcome an infinite prior improbability—the mathematical structure still constrains rational belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Calling priors 'dynamic' conflates posterior updating with abolishing principled skepticism about extraordinary claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Bayesian inference updates beliefs based on new evidence, making prior probabilities dynamic rather than fixed constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Extraordinary evidence can rationally overcome low priors if the likelihood ratio sufficiently favors the miracle hypothesis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Treating priors as unchangeable thresholds commits a category error by confusing initial assumptions with evidential reasoning.
      ?

      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.