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 Without knowing the space of possible God-justifying reasons, probabilistic claims about their existence are epistemically ungrounded.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
We can assign probabilities to hypotheses despite incomplete knowledge of underlying mechanisms, as in quantum mechanics and medicine.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The argument proves too much: it would paralyze probabilistic reasoning about any complex domain with deep unknowns.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Subjective Bayesian approaches allow rational credence assignments even with limited conceptual frameworks about outcome spaces.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Probability assignments require a defined outcome space; without knowing possible God-justifying reasons, we lack this space.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Unknown unknowns about divine justification make frequency or credence assignments arbitrary rather than epistemically grounded.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Theological humility suggests our cognitive limits regarding God's reasons should constrain what probabilities we claim to know.
?
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.