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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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