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 Plantinga's free will defense applies only to moral evil, leaving natural evil—earthquakes, disease, child suffering—entirely unexplained by appeals to human freedom.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Natural evil can result from free creatures' choices: pollution, deforestation, and negligence cause disease and suffering indirectly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A world with natural laws enabling human freedom necessarily permits natural evils as a metaphysical byproduct of those same laws.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Plantinga's defense need not explain every instance of evil individually; showing one coherent explanation exists satisfies the logical problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Plantinga explicitly grounds his defense in human libertarian free will, which has no application to natural disasters or diseases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Natural evil causes suffering without any agent exercising choice, so freedom-based explanations are logically inapplicable to it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Plantinga acknowledges but does not adequately address natural evil, leaving a significant gap in his theodicy.
      ?

      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.