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
    For any two propositions q and r, if q entails r then Pr(... — Carmelics
    Home/Problem of Evil
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Assumption (1), as interpreted by Rowe, is eminently reasonable.

    For any two propositions q and r, if q entails r then Pr(r | q) = 1.

    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

    Related

    Assumption (1), as interpreted by Rowe, is eminently reasonable.Rowe interprets P in such a way that not-G entails P, since he interprets P as s...Since not-G entails P, Pr(P | not-G) = 1, which is what assumption (1) states.

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Problem of Evil
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    The probability of r given q is equal to one if and only if q entails ...84%One can support premises (2) and (3) by appealing to the principle tha...81%Pr(P | G & k) can be equal to one only if the conjunction ¬P & G & k i...72%Since not-G entails P, Pr(P | not-G) = 1, which is what assumption (1)...68%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: evil
    View source passageHide passage
    Fourthly, all three assumptions, interpreted as Rowe does, are surely eminently reasonable. As regards (1), it follows from the fact that for any two propositions \(q\) and \(r\), if \(q\) entails \(r\) then \(\Pr(r \mid q) = 1\), together with the fact that Rowe interprets \(P\) in such a way that \(\negt G\) entails \(P\), since he interprets \(P\) as saying that it is not the case that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being together with some known good that justifies that being in allowing \(E_1\) and \(E_2\).

    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