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 Premise (3) is plausible.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On Leibnizian optimalism, God's perfect rationality and goodness necessitate actualizing the best possible world, which may logically require evils as constitutive goods.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If evil is a logically necessary component of the best achievable world, then G & k does entail P, contra P3.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Swinburne's soul-making theodicy grounds this: a world with genuine moral development is better than one without, and such development metaphysically requires the possibility of suffering.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Alvin Plantinga's free will defense shows G & k may metaphysically entail P if creaturely freedom requires the possibility of moral evil.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If possible worlds where God creates free creatures necessarily include worlds with evil, then ¬P & G & k is impossible, falsifying P3.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Pr(P | G & k) can be equal to one only if the conjunction ¬P & G & k is necessarily false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The conjunction ¬P & G & k is necessarily false only if either ¬P is necessarily false or the conjunction G & k entails P.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Neither ¬P is necessarily false nor does G & k entail P.
      ?

      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.