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 the ontological argument were sound, it would provide a rather decisive refutation of the argument from evil.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The soundness of the ontological argument is itself contested by appealing to conceivability intuitions about evil-permitting worlds, making its epistemic status inseparable from the problem of evil.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mackie and Plantinga both recognize that modal intuitions pumping the ontological argument can be undermined by equally valid intuitions that a world of gratuitous suffering is possible without God.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A refutation that presupposes its conclusion by embedding God's necessity into the premise structure commits a form of question-begging against the evidential atheist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Necessary existence, as Kant argued, is not a genuine predicate that survives translation into first-order logic, leaving the modal move from conceivability to actuality unwarranted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If necessary existence cannot be coherently attributed to any being, then the ontological argument cannot establish probability-zero for God's nonexistence, and evidential arguments from evil retain their force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If the ontological argument were sound, it would show not merely that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being, but that it is necessary that such a being exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If it is necessary that such a being exists, then the proposition that God does not exist must have probability zero on any body of evidence whatever.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the probability of God's nonexistence is zero on any body of evidence, then no evidence of evil could support the conclusion that God does not exist.
      ?

      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.