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 advocate of the argument from evil needs to be able t... — Carmelics
    Home/Problem of Evil
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The advocate of the argument from evil needs to be able to show that the ontological argument is unsound.

    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
    ?
    • The ontological argument is a notable exception to the standard arguments that are not to the point (i.e., it is relevant to the question at issue).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The argument from evil operates at the evidential or logical level, requiring only that God's existence is improbable or impossible given evil.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A successful argument from evil entails God's non-existence, which itself entails the unsoundness of any valid argument for God's existence, including ontological arguments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, refuting the ontological argument is not a prerequisite burden for the argument from evil but a consequence of its success, not a precondition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rowe, Draper, and other evidential atheists construct arguments from evil that are probabilistic and independent of modal claims about God's necessary existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The ontological argument's conclusion—that God necessarily exists—is irrelevant to evidential arguments from evil, which only claim that evil makes God's existence less probable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Requiring evidential atheists to refute ontological arguments conflates the logical problem of evil with the evidential problem, which Plantinga himself distinguished in 'God, Freedom, and Evil' (1974).
      ?

      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

    A successful argument from evil entails God's non-existence, which itself entail...Requiring evidential atheists to refute ontological arguments conflates the logi...Rowe, Draper, and other evidential atheists construct arguments from evil that a...The argument from evil operates at the evidential or logical level, requiring on...
    +3 moreShow less
    The ontological argument is a notable exception to the standard arguments that a...The ontological argument's conclusion—that God necessarily exists—is irrelevant ...Therefore, refuting the ontological argument is not a prerequisite burden for th...

    Similar

    If the ontological argument were sound, it would provide a rather deci...89%The ontological argument is unsound.85%The argument from evil may or may not be sound, since one or more of i...83%Any axiological formulation of the argument from evil is incomplete in...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: evil
    View source passageHide passage
    What if one shifts to a slightly less abstract formulation of the argument from evil that is based upon the premise that the world contains a certain amount of evil, or upon the premise that the world contains at least some natural evil? Then one is including marginally more information. But one is still assuming, in effect, that most of the detailed information about the evils found in the world is completely irrelevant to the argument from evil, and a little reflection brings out how very implausible this assumption is. So, for example, consider a world that contains a billion units of na...

    Details

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