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 theodicy that accounts for only one category of evil while ignoring the other fails as a comprehensive defense of theism against the problem of evil.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The distinction between moral and natural evil may be artificial; both trace to the same metaphysical foundations (free will, natural law, divine omnipotence limits).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A single theodicy (e.g., soul-making theodicy) can coherently address both categories without treating them as requiring independent justifications.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Demanding comprehensive single-theory explanations sets an unreasonably high epistemic standard that few philosophical positions in any domain can meet.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Evil manifests in two distinct forms: moral evil (human wrongdoing) and natural evil (suffering from disease, earthquakes). Each requires separate explanatory mechanisms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A theodicy addressing only moral evil via free will cannot explain childhood cancer or tsunamis, leaving half the problem of evil unresolved.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Comprehensive philosophical defenses must address all major objections; selective explanations appear ad hoc and weaken theism's rational credibility.
      ?

      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.