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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rowe's assumption (1) that no good we know of justifies permitting certain suffering commits the informal fallacy of inference from ignorance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Stephen Wykstra's CORNEA principle shows that humans lack the cognitive position to reliably detect whether God has sufficient reasons for permitting intense suffering.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the plausibility of assumption (1) is undermined, making Rowe's first conclusion fault-worthy despite its surface logical validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Plantinga and van Inwagen argue that the total moral and spiritual value of a world with free creatures capable of significant good may require permitting horrendous suffering.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rowe's argument presupposes an implausibly narrow conception of the goods that could justify suffering, excluding long-term soul-making goods defended by Hick and Swinburne.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Since assumption (3) restricts justifying goods too narrowly, the argument's premises are not jointly as plausible as claimed, making it genuinely faultable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Assumptions (1), (2), and (3) are plausible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The logic of Rowe's argument is impeccable.
      ?

      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.