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 Given the vast disproportion between human and divine cognition, our inability to identify a justifying good for E1 and E2 provides negligible evidential support that no such good exists, undermining the 'eminently reasonable' characterization.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The cognitive disparity argument proves too much: it could justify any evil, making divine benevolence empirically unfalsifiable and vacuous.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.We can reasonably identify *some* goods (pain avoidance, moral development); failing to justify extreme suffering suggests incoherence in theism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Skepticism about our ability to identify justifying goods should equally undermine confidence that such goods exist—it cuts both ways.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Human cognitive capacity is finite; we cannot comprehend purposes operating at scales vastly beyond our experience or temporal horizons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An absence of evidence for justifying goods is logically distinct from evidence of absence—especially given epistemic limitations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If God's cognition truly exceeds ours infinitely, confidently asserting 'no justifying good exists' commits us to an unreasonable certainty.
      ?

      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.