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
    All of the steps in the argument, other than the inferenc... — Carmelics
    Home/Problem of Evil
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The above argument appears to stand or fall with the defensibility of the inductive inference from (1) to (2).

    All of the steps in the argument, other than the inference from (1) to (2), are deductive, and are either clearly valid as they stand, or could be made so by trivial expansions of the argument at the relevant points.

    Problem of Evil
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Problem of Evil

    Key Terms

    deductive(describing the logical structure of an argument)
    A type of reasoning where if the starting statements (called premises) are true, the conclusion must be true—there's no way around it. It's the opposite of reasoning where you make an educated guess.
    inference(Nyāya epistemology)
    A component of epistemology in Nyāya philosophy; a veritable inference yields knowledge about the world and must have premises that are themselves known
    trivial expansions(suggesting that some arguments could be made clearer without major changes)
    Adding small, obvious clarifications or extra steps to an argument that don't really change its core meaning—like filling in blanks that most people would assume anyway.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Problem of Evil
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    valid(Contrasted with the proof-theoretic notion of deducibility)
    A model-theoretic notion indicating that a conclusion is true in every model in which the premises are true

    Related

    The above argument appears to stand or fall with the defensibility of the induct...

    Similar

    The above argument appears to stand or fall with the defensibility of ...75%If an inductive step is required, it is best to make that crucial indu...74%If the premise cannot be established deductively, the only possibility...71%When such observations are incorporated into the total evidence, it is...71%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: evil
    View source passageHide passage
    As regards the logic of the argument, all of the steps in the argument, other than the inference from (1) to (2), are deductive, and are either clearly valid as they stand, or could be made so by trivial expansions of the argument at the relevant points. The upshot, accordingly, is that the above argument appears to stand or fall with the defensibility of the inductive inference from (1) to (2). The crucial questions, accordingly, are, first, exactly what the form of that inductive inference is, and, secondly, whether it is sound.

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective