Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Logical completeness requires that a theodicy account for all morally relevant instances of evil, not merely a proper subset of them.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
No finite account can exhaustively catalog all evils; theodicies aim to explain the *structure* of permission, not enumerate every case.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A successful explanation of why God permits suffering from disease might rationally extend to other evils without requiring separate justification for each.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Demanding complete accounting sets an impossible epistemic standard humans cannot meet regarding divine reasoning or metaphysical necessity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
A theodicy claims to justify God's moral character; selective justification leaves unanswered why God permits excluded evils.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Logical consistency requires that principles explaining some evils must apply uniformly or their exceptions need independent justification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If a theodicy fails for even one morally relevant instance, it undermines claims that God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
?
How convincing is this?
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.