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 An appeal to free will provides no answer to an argument from evil that focuses upon natural evils.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Many evils are caused by natural processes, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, other weather conditions, and a wide variety of diseases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Such evils do not appear to result from morally wrong actions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If natural evils do not result from morally wrong actions, then free will cannot explain their existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Natural evils like tsunamis and cancer operate through deterministic physical laws entirely independent of any agent's choice or intention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A free will defense requires a causal chain linking the evil to a free choice, but no such chain exists between tectonic plate movement and human volition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Alvin Plantinga's own free will defense explicitly limits its scope to moral evil, conceding that natural evil requires separate theodical resources like the demon hypothesis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If free will were sufficient to explain natural evil, God could have created a world with free creatures but without earthquakes, viruses, or predation, since these require no free choices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The logical independence of natural processes from free will entails that even a world of perfectly virtuous agents would still generate natural evil under current physical laws.
      ?

      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.