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 Even if the evidential argument from evil is sound, its conclusion is not really significant.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.What matters is not whether there is some evidence relative to which it is unlikely that theism is true, but whether theism is improbable relative to our total evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There may be different observations (e.g., experiences that seem to be experiences of a loving deity) that are more likely if theism is true than if the Hypothesis of Indifference is true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When such observations are incorporated into the total evidence, it is unclear whether the revised substantive premise of the argument remains plausible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Probabilistic arguments establish epistemic conclusions about rational credence, not metaphysical conclusions about God's existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A conclusion showing theism is merely improbable relative to evil-evidence leaves the metaphysical question genuinely open, which is itself philosophically significant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.William Alston's 'dwindling probabilities' argument shows that chaining probabilistic inferences about God's reasons yields conclusions too weak to ground confident atheism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Richard Swinburne's cumulative case methodology demonstrates that no single evidence-strand determines theism's overall probability across the total evidence base.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the evidential argument's conclusion is confined to a narrow evidential partition excluding religious experience, cosmological fine-tuning, and moral facts, its scope is intrinsically limited.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A conclusion significant only within a gerrymandered evidential subset cannot ground the broader atheistic conclusions the argument's proponents typically claim to establish.
      ?

      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.