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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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