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 interpretation of P smuggles in an epistemic limit... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

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

    Rowe's interpretation of P smuggles in an epistemic limitation by defining P relative to 'known goods', making the entailment trivially true by definitional fiat rather than substantive metaphysical necessity.

    ?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.Defining P via 'known goods' restricts its scope to epistemic access, not metaphysical reality, conflating epistemology with ontology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If P's truth follows merely from its definition rather than from world-structure, the argument proves nothing about actual divine omniscience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Substantive theodicy requires showing God could permit evil given reality's constraints, not just what fits a stipulated conceptual framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Defining concepts relative to accessible knowledge is standard practice; it doesn't automatically render conclusions trivial or question-begging.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rowe's argument aims to show *if* omniscience involves knowledge of good states, then gratuitous evils become problematic—a conditional necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The charge of 'definitional fiat' requires demonstrating Rowe's definition is arbitrary rather than tracking our actual concept of omniscience.
      ?

      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.

    Key Terms

    Definitional fiat(accusing an argument of cheating by building the conclusion into its definitions)
    When something is made true simply by how you define your terms, rather than by proving it's actually how the world works.
    Epistemic limitation(as the actual problem Wykstra identifies instead of inductive weakness)
    A boundary on what we can know or understand; a limit to human knowledge or awareness.
    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.
    entailment(Conceptualist framework)
    Understood in terms of truth at a world
    metaphysical necessity(Distinguishing types of necessity)
    A property of things that must be the case but not purely by logical form — true in all possible worlds without being logical tautologies
    trivially true(Elster's characterization of methodological individualism; the author notes the ambiguity matters because Elster derives substantive doctrines from the commitment)
    Used by Elster in the vernacular sense of 'platitudinous' rather than the philosophical sense of 'tautologous'

    Connections

    1 topic

    Problem of Evil1 linked

    Related

    Assumption (1), as interpreted by Rowe, is eminently reasonable.Defining P via 'known goods' restricts its scope to epistemic access, not metaph...Defining concepts relative to accessible knowledge is standard practice; it does...If P's truth follows merely from its definition rather than from world-structure...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    +3 moreShow less
    Rowe's argument aims to show *if* omniscience involves knowledge of good states,...Substantive theodicy requires showing God could permit evil given reality's cons...The charge of 'definitional fiat' requires demonstrating Rowe's definition is ar...