MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1159254799 · doi:10.5840/philo201316212

Layman’s Lapse: On an Incomplete Moral Argument for Theism

2013· article· en· W1159254799 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Brian Davis, W. Paul Franks

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilo · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Philosophy of Evil
Canadian institutionsTyndale University
FundersJohn Templeton Foundation
KeywordsTheismPhilosophyArgument (complex analysis)EpistemologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C. Stephen Layman contends that an argument supporting theism over naturalism can be constructed based on three defensible, non-question-begging premises about the moral order.Previous critics of Layman's argument have challenged the truth of these premises.We stipulate them arguendo but go on to show that there is a deeper problem: a fourth premise introduced to complete the argument-the "completion premise," as we call it-is true only if we assume that God exists (begging the question about naturalism) or we concede that there is no afterlife (contrary to theism).We close with suggestions for how Layman's argument must be strengthened to meet with dialectical success.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.029
Scholarly communication0.0050.012
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0110.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhiloSame topicTheology and Philosophy of EvilFrench-language works237,207