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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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