Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Shifting the burden to the theist's proof still requires the sceptic to establish a baseline expectation of what a good God's creation would look like.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Skeptics implicitly appeal to standards when claiming unnecessary suffering exists; this requires some framework of what a better creation would involve.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Without articulating baseline expectations, skeptics risk incoherence—e.g., criticizing both free will theodicies and deterministic divine omniscience.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Refusing to specify what would constitute 'good creation' allows skeptics to reject any theistic explanation as inadequate without principled justification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Burden of proof applies to positive claims; theism asserts God exists, so theists must prove it without requiring skeptics to first define alternatives.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Skeptics can reasonably identify logical contradictions (omnipotence + suffering) without pre-establishing what a perfect world looks like.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Demanding skeptics build a complete theodicy before rejecting theism is methodologically backwards—it shifts argumentative responsibility unfairly.
?
How convincing is this?
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.