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 interprets P in such a way that not-G entails P, sin... — Carmelics
    Home/Problem of Evil
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Assumption (1), as interpreted by Rowe, is eminently reasonable.

    Rowe interprets P in such a way that not-G entails P, since he interprets P as saying that it is not the case that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being together with some known good that justifies that being in allowing E1 and E2.

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

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Problem of Evil

    Key Terms

    E1 and E2(represent instances of suffering or evil)
    Symbols representing specific examples of suffering or evil events being discussed; like placeholders for 'bad thing #1' and 'bad thing #2.'
    Omniscient(describing God's knowledge)
    Knowing everything—all facts, all truths, and all events (past, present, and future).
    Rowe(identifies the philosopher being discussed)
    William Rowe is a philosopher famous for arguing that the existence of suffering in the world makes it hard to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Problem of Evil
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    entails(describes a logical relationship between statements)
    Logically forces or guarantees; if A entails B, then whenever A is true, B must also be true.
    justify(refers to reasons that would make God's allowance of suffering reasonable)
    To provide good reasons or a valid explanation for why something is acceptable or necessary.
    not-G(represents a negated statement)
    The opposite or negation of some claim called 'G'; if G means 'God exists,' then not-G means 'God does not exist.'
    omnipotent(Used in the context of arguing about whether multiple omnipotent beings could coexist.)
    A being whose will is never thwarted; a being capable of bringing about any willed outcome.
    perfectly good(describes a traditional attribute of God)
    Completely morally perfect; always acts in the most ethical and moral way possible.

    Related

    Assumption (1), as interpreted by Rowe, is eminently reasonable.For any two propositions q and r, if q entails r then Pr(r | q) = 1.Since not-G entails P, Pr(P | not-G) = 1, which is what assumption (1) states.

    Similar

    The existence of God together with our background knowledge does not l...83%There is no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person.77%The claim that 'we are justified in believing that the As we haven't o...76%Nevertheless, conceiving of God as all-powerful, all-knowing, and perf...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: evil
    View source passageHide passage
    Fourthly, all three assumptions, interpreted as Rowe does, are surely eminently reasonable. As regards (1), it follows from the fact that for any two propositions \(q\) and \(r\), if \(q\) entails \(r\) then \(\Pr(r \mid q) = 1\), together with the fact that Rowe interprets \(P\) in such a way that \(\negt G\) entails \(P\), since he interprets \(P\) as saying that it is not the case that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being together with some known good that justifies that being in allowing \(E_1\) and \(E_2\).

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective