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 Ockham's razor favors the hypothesis requiring fewer auxiliary assumptions, and a limited deity requires no theodicy to explain natural evil.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
A limited deity hypothesis adds its own assumptions: what are the limits, why those limits, why worship it?
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Many theodicies (soul-making, free will defense) don't require more assumptions than finite deity explanations do.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Ockham's razor applies to entities, not attributes; removing omnibenevolence while keeping omnipotence adds conceptual problems.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Omnipotence + omniscience + omnibenevolence create logical tensions requiring complex theodicies to resolve.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A deity with limited power straightforwardly explains why preventable suffering exists without additional hypotheses.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Parsimony favors theories minimizing unfalsifiable claims; unlimited divine attributes are harder to test than bounded ones.
?
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.