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
    The above argument appears to stand or fall with the defe... — Carmelics
    Home/Problem of Evil
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The above argument appears to stand or fall with the defensibility of the inductive inference from (1) to (2).

    Problem of Evil
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • All of the steps in the argument, other than the inference from (1) to (2), are deductive, and are either clearly valid as they stand, or could be made so by trivial expansions of the argument at the relevant points.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The inference from (1) to (2) may be better characterized as abductive rather than inductive, since it reasons to the best explanation of observed evils.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Abductive inferences are evaluated by different epistemic standards than inductive ones, requiring assessment of explanatory coherence rather than frequency or sample size.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the inference is abductive, the argument's success depends on whether theism or alternative frameworks better explain the full range of observed evils, not merely on inductive validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Stephen Wykstra and other skeptical theists argue that the inference from (1) to (2) fails not due to inductive weakness but due to a prior epistemic limitation: humans lack the cognitive access needed to identify all morally sufficient reasons God might have.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If our epistemic position relative to divine reasons resembles a child's inability to grasp a surgeon's justification for causing pain, then the absence of perceived justifying reasons carries negligible evidential weight.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This objection targets the epistemic preconditions of the inference rather than its inductive form, meaning the argument's fate is tied to the CORNEA principle, not inductive logic per se.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Problem of Evil

    Related

    Abductive inferences are evaluated by different epistemic standards than inducti...All of the steps in the argument, other than the inference from (1) to (2), are ...If our epistemic position relative to divine reasons resembles a child's inabili...If the inference is abductive, the argument's success depends on whether theism ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Stephen Wykstra and other skeptical theists argue that the inference from (1) to...The inference from (1) to (2) may be better characterized as abductive rather th...This objection targets the epistemic preconditions of the inference rather than ...

    Similar

    All of the steps in the argument, other than the inference from (1) to...75%Theism can be shown to be unlikely to be true via the indirect inducti...75%If an inductive step is required, it is best to make that crucial indu...75%While inductive arguments can fail because their logic is faulty or th...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: evil
    View source passageHide passage
    As regards the logic of the argument, all of the steps in the argument, other than the inference from (1) to (2), are deductive, and are either clearly valid as they stand, or could be made so by trivial expansions of the argument at the relevant points. The upshot, accordingly, is that the above argument appears to stand or fall with the defensibility of the inductive inference from (1) to (2). The crucial questions, accordingly, are, first, exactly what the form of that inductive inference is, and, secondly, whether it is sound.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit