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's assumption (1) that no good we know of justifies p... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Rowe's argument for his first conclusion is difficult to fault.

    Rowe's assumption (1) that no good we know of justifies permitting certain suffering commits the informal fallacy of inference from ignorance.

    ?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.An argument commits the fallacy of ignorance only if it infers something's falsity from our mere lack of knowledge of its truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rowe argues from the absence of known justifying goods to the absence of any justifying goods—a leap beyond what ignorance warrants.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Our cognitive limitations mean we regularly fail to know goods that actually exist, making this inference epistemically unreliable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Not all inferences from ignorance are fallacious; they're valid when the absence itself is evidence (e.g., absence of footprints suggests no one passed).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rowe's claim relies on reasonable background assumptions about God's omniscience and transparency, not mere lack of knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The fallacy charge conflates acknowledging epistemic limits with committing a logical error in structured reasoning.
      ?

      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

    An argument commits the fallacy of ignorance only if it infers something's falsi...Not all inferences from ignorance are fallacious; they're valid when the absence...Our cognitive limitations mean we regularly fail to know goods that actually exi...Rowe argues from the absence of known justifying goods to the absence of any jus...
    +3 moreShow less
    Rowe's argument for his first conclusion is difficult to fault.Rowe's claim relies on reasonable background assumptions about God's omniscience...The fallacy charge conflates acknowledging epistemic limits with committing a lo...

    Details

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