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
    If one is defending a probabilistic version of the argume... — Carmelics
    Home/Problem of Evil
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    If one is defending a probabilistic version of the argument from evil, one needs to consider what sorts of positive reasons might be offered in support of the existence of God.

    Problem of Evil
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The argument from evil supports only a probabilistic conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A probabilistic conclusion can potentially be offset by positive evidence for the existence of God.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The evidential argument from evil, as Draper formulates it, challenges not theism simpliciter but the likelihood ratio between theism and naturalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Positive theistic evidence and evil-based disconfirmation operate on the same probability space, so they cannot be assessed independently without circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Offsetting evil's disconfirmatory force with theistic evidence presupposes a prior probability assignment that is itself contestable on non-theistic grounds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rowe's cumulative case holds that gratuitous suffering constitutes strong prima facie evidence against omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence taken conjunctively.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If theistic arguments establish only a generic designer or first cause, they fail to confirm the specific attributes that the argument from evil directly disconfirms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, most classical theistic proofs are evidentially irrelevant to offsetting the probabilistic argument from evil because they do not target the right set of divine properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Problem of Evil

    Related

    A probabilistic conclusion can potentially be offset by positive evidence for th...If theistic arguments establish only a generic designer or first cause, they fai...Offsetting evil's disconfirmatory force with theistic evidence presupposes a pri...Positive theistic evidence and evil-based disconfirmation operate on the same pr...
    +4 moreShow less
    Rowe's cumulative case holds that gratuitous suffering constitutes strong prima ...The argument from evil supports only a probabilistic conclusion.The evidential argument from evil, as Draper formulates it, challenges not theis...Therefore, most classical theistic proofs are evidentially irrelevant to offsett...

    Similar

    The argument from evil should be formulated as an evidential (inductiv...85%The argument from evil supports only a probabilistic conclusion.85%A probabilistic conclusion can potentially be offset by positive evide...80%Nevertheless, conceiving of God as all-powerful, all-knowing, and perf...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: evil
    View source passageHide passage
    This discussion is divided into eight sections. The first is concerned with some preliminary distinctions; the second, with the choice between deductive versions of the argument from evil, and evidential versions; the third, with alternative evidential formulations of the argument from evil; the fourth, with the distinction between three very different types of responses to the argument from evil: attempted total refutations, defenses, and theodicies. The fifth section then focuses upon attempted total refutations, while the sixth is concerned with defenses, and the seventh with some tradition...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit