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
    Rowe, Draper, and other evidential atheists construct arg... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The advocate of the argument from evil needs to be able to show that the ontological argument is unsound.

    Rowe, Draper, and other evidential atheists construct arguments from evil that are probabilistic and independent of modal claims about God's necessary existence.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Probabilistic arguments avoid conflating logical possibility with metaphysical necessity, allowing empirical evidence of suffering to count against theism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Independence from modal claims about necessary existence makes the argument accessible to theists who reject classical metaphysics but accept God's contingency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Inductive reasoning from observed evil to improbable divine benevolence requires no commitment to what God must be, only what actual evidence suggests.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Probabilistic arguments rely on questionable background assumptions about expected divine behavior that cannot be established without modal metaphysical claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If God's necessary existence is true, no amount of empirical evil can make theism improbable—the argument's force depends on rejecting necessity without argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Inductive arguments about evil require undefended premises about probability distributions and God's likely motivations that smuggle in their own metaphysics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Connections

    1 topic

    Problem of Evil1 linked

    Related

    If God's necessary existence is true, no amount of empirical evil can make theis...Independence from modal claims about necessary existence makes the argument acce...Inductive arguments about evil require undefended premises about probability dis...Inductive reasoning from observed evil to improbable divine benevolence requires...
    +3 moreShow less
    Probabilistic arguments avoid conflating logical possibility with metaphysical n...Probabilistic arguments rely on questionable background assumptions about expect...The advocate of the argument from evil needs to be able to show that the ontolog...

    Details

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