Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A response that leaves an entire category of evil unaddressed cannot constitute an adequate complete theodicy by any standard of logical sufficiency.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Adequacy and completeness are distinct concepts; a response can be adequate without being exhaustively complete in scope.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Theodicies aim to show evil is logically compatible with God's existence, not to explain every instance—categorical coverage may exceed this goal.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Demanding zero unaddressed evil categories sets an impossibly high standard that no philosophical response in any domain could meet.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Completeness is a necessary condition for adequacy: a response addressing only some evils leaves the problem unsolved for excluded categories.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Logical sufficiency requires addressing all instances of a problem; partial solutions fail the standard of logical completeness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If God exists and is omnipotent, one category of unaddressed evil remains evidence against traditional theistic claims.
?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42