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
    Premises (1) through (6) validly imply conclusion (7), i.... — Carmelics
    Home/Problem of Evil
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Premises (1) through (6) validly imply conclusion (7), i.e., that God does not exist.

    Problem of Evil
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    2 reasons against

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If, contrary to (7), God exists, it follows from (1) that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This, together with (2), (3), and (4), entails that God has the power to eliminate all evil, that God knows when evil exists, and that God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When (5) is conjoined with the reductio assumption that God exists, it follows via modus ponens from (6) that either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If, contrary to (7), God exists, it follows from (1) that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This, together with (2), (3), and (4), entails that God has the power to eliminate all evil, that God knows when evil exists, and that God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When (5) is conjoined with the reductio assumption that God exists, it follows via modus ponens from (6) that either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Premise (6) assumes that a morally perfect being eliminates all evils it can, but Plantinga shows this conflates moral perfection with a maximizing principle not entailed by theism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A morally perfect God may permissibly allow evil if doing so is necessary to actualize a world containing significantly free creatures capable of moral good.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore (6) is false: omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection jointly permit, rather than prohibit, the coexistence of God and evil under libertarian freedom.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Premise (5)—that evil exists—is logically compatible with God's existence once we reject the implicit assumption that God's goodness requires eliminating all evil unconditionally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hick's Irenaean theodicy demonstrates that soul-making goods (virtue, empathy, moral growth) are only achievable in an environment containing genuine suffering and adversity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If certain irreplaceable goods are logically inseparable from evil's existence, then a perfectly good God has sufficient reason to permit evil, dissolving the contradiction in (P4).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Problem of Evil

    Related

    A morally perfect God may permissibly allow evil if doing so is necessary to act...Hick's Irenaean theodicy demonstrates that soul-making goods (virtue, empathy, m...If certain irreplaceable goods are logically inseparable from evil's existence, ...If, contrary to (7), God exists, it follows from (1) that God is omnipotent, omn...
    +9 moreShow less
    Premise (5)—that evil exists—is logically compatible with God's existence once w...Premise (6) assumes that a morally perfect being eliminates all evils it can, bu...Since assuming the denial of (7) together with premises (1) through (6) leads to...Since assuming the denial of (7) together with premises (1) through (6) leads to...Therefore (6) is false: omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection jointly p...These results produce a contradiction: God both has and lacks the power, knowled...This, together with (2), (3), and (4), entails that God has the power to elimina...We therefore have a contradiction: God both has and lacks the power, knowledge, ...When (5) is conjoined with the reductio assumption that God exists, it follows v...

    Similar

    Theism is very probably false, even when the evidence for God's existe...82%There is at least some non-zero probability that God does not exist, g...82%If it is necessary that such a being exists, then the proposition that...81%If the probability of God's nonexistence is zero on any body of eviden...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted3/3 agreementValid
    SEP: evil
    View source passageHide passage
    That this argument is valid is perhaps most easily seen by a reductio argument, in which one assumes that the conclusion—(7)—is false, and then shows that the denial of (7), along with premises (1) through (6), leads to a contradiction. Thus if, contrary to (7), God exists, it follows from (1) that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. This, together with (2), (3), and (4) then entails that God has the power to eliminate all evil, that God knows when evil exists, and that God has the desire to eliminate all evil. But when (5) is conjoined with the reductio assumption that God...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The extracted argument accurately captures the reductio ad absurdum reasoning presented in the source passage, where assuming God exists (denying conclusion 7) together with premises (1)-(6) leads to a contradiction, thereby validly establishing (7).

    Confidence: High confidence. The passage explicitly presents a reductio ad absurdum argument establishing the validity of the argument from evil.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    4 (2 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit