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
    A defense differs from a theodicy in that a defense attem... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Problem of Evil
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A defense differs from a theodicy in that a defense attempts to show only that some God-justifying reasons probably exist, without attempting to specify what those reasons are.

    Problem of Evil
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A theodicy must specify reasons that would suffice to justify an omnipotent and omniscient being in allowing all of the evils found in the world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A defense need merely show that it is likely that there are reasons which would justify an omnipotent and omniscient being in not preventing the evils found in the world, even if one does not know what those reasons are.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Alston and Wykstra's skeptical theism shows that 'probably exist' requires epistemic access to the range of possible reasons, which we lack.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without knowing the space of possible God-justifying reasons, probabilistic claims about their existence are epistemically ungrounded.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A defense that cannot specify reasons therefore cannot meaningfully assert their probability, collapsing the distinction from mere possibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rowe argues that the inferential gap between unknown reasons and no reasons narrows as the severity and gratuitousness of evils increases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the epistemic burden of a defense scales with the magnitude of evil, then for sufficiently horrific evils, non-specification becomes functionally inadequate as a response.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Problem of Evil

    Related

    A defense need merely show that it is likely that there are reasons which would ...A defense that cannot specify reasons therefore cannot meaningfully assert their...A theodicy must specify reasons that would suffice to justify an omnipotent and ...Alston and Wykstra's skeptical theism shows that 'probably exist' requires epist...
    +3 moreShow less
    If the epistemic burden of a defense scales with the magnitude of evil, then for...Rowe argues that the inferential gap between unknown reasons and no reasons narr...Without knowing the space of possible God-justifying reasons, probabilistic clai...

    Similar

    A defense need merely show that it is likely that there are reasons wh...78%No other theodicy appears to provide a satisfactory justification for ...76%If other theodicies could provide a justification for God's allowing m...76%A theodicy must specify reasons that would suffice to justify an omnip...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: evil
    View source passageHide passage
    The other possibility is that of offering a defense. But what is a defense? In the context of abstract, incompatibility versions of the argument from evil, this term is generally used to refer to attempts to show that there is no logical incompatibility between the existence of evil and the existence of God. Such attempts involve setting out a story that entails the existence of both God and evil, and that is logically consistent. But as soon as one focuses upon evidential formulations of the argument from evil, a different interpretation is needed if the term is to remain a useful one, si...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit