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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.