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 argument from evil should be formulated as an evidential (inductive/probabilistic) argument for the claim that existing evils make it unlikely that God exists, rather than as a deductive argument for the impossibility of God and evil coexisting.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mackie's logical argument succeeds because omnipotence and perfect goodness entail the elimination of all evil, making coexistence strictly contradictory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the logical incompatibility holds a priori, recasting the argument as probabilistic concedes too much to theistic replies like Plantinga's Free Will Defense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A successful deductive argument, if sound, is always stronger than a probabilistic one that merely shifts burdens of evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rowe's evidential formulation relies on the claim that gratuitous evils probably exist, which itself presupposes contested background assumptions about divine purposes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the probabilistic argument requires contested assumptions about what God would likely permit, the inductive step imports hidden theological commitments that undermine its secular force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A deductive argument from conceptual analysis of omnipotence and goodness avoids this dependence on empirical probability judgments about inscrutable divine reasons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A key premise such as (1) cannot, at least at present, be established deductively.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the premise cannot be established deductively, the only possibility is to offer some sort of inductive argument in support of it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If an inductive step is required, it is best to make that crucial inductive step explicit in the formulation of the argument.
      ?

      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.