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 If ECT is true, then God is evil

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

    Reasons For

    4 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 4
    ?
    • 1.It says that God would have a bloodthirst that would never be quenched
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the above is true, God is evil
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 4
    ?
    • 1.It says that God will hurt people forever
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A God who does so is evil
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 3 of 4
    ?
    • 1.It says God to be without the mercy to let the damned die
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A God who does so is evil
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 4 of 4
    ?
    • 1.It says God would allow purposeless suffering
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A God who does so is evil
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Retributive punishment is only justified when proportionate to the offense, as Kant himself insisted in the Metaphysics of Morals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Finite temporal sins cannot generate infinite guilt, making infinite punishment categorically disproportionate by any coherent retributive framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A being who knowingly imposes disproportionate suffering without remedial purpose satisfies the philosophical definition of a malicious agent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rowe's evidential problem of evil holds that gratuitous suffering—suffering with no outweighing justification—constitutes evidence against omnibenevolence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.ECT entails suffering that is by definition permanent and remediationless, satisfying Rowe's criterion of gratuitousness since no future good can be achieved for the sufferer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A being who architects and sustains a system generating gratuitous infinite suffering bears moral responsibility for that evil, regardless of creaturely choice.
      ?

      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.