If the threshold quantity of suffering necessary to produce serious moral agents and deep compassion is empirically indeterminate, then a large n of suffering cases cannot by itself lower the probability of theism without begging the question against these theodicies.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Empirically indeterminate(in epistemology): Something that cannot be determined or measured through observation and evidence; we can't figure it out by looking at real-world data.
Lower the probability(in logic and arguments about evidence): To make something seem less likely to be true based on evidence or reasoning.
Moral agents(as used in ethics): People or entities capable of understanding right and wrong, making choices based on moral principles, and being held responsible for their actions.
Threshold quantity(as used in this ethical argument): The minimum amount of something needed to reach a certain point or trigger a certain effect.
begging the question(Listed alongside equivocation as an example of a fallacy that highlights important issues in real-life arguing): A fallacy also known as circular reasoning
theism(Distinguished from monotheism as a weaker claim about the number of divine beings.): The position that at least one god exists.
theodicy(Central concern of Plutarch's era): The philosophical problem of reconciling the existence of evil and unpunished wrongdoing with the existence and goodness of divine providence.

1 topic