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 argument from natural law regularity only justifies t... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→God's allowing natural evils is justified.

    The argument from natural law regularity only justifies the existence of natural evil in general, not the existence of gratuitous suffering like the slow death of innocent animals or childhood cancer.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Natural law regularity explains why suffering exists as a category, but cannot justify why specific instances must be maximally severe and prolonged.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A world with natural laws could permit animal death without childhood cancer; the latter adds gratuitous suffering beyond what law-governed nature requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If God designed natural laws, He could have set their parameters to reduce extreme suffering in innocents without eliminating natural laws entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The distinction between 'necessary natural evil' and 'gratuitous suffering' assumes we can know God's reasons; we may lack epistemic access to justify either category.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Natural laws that permit some suffering necessarily permit the severe cases; eliminating childhood cancer without changing laws is logically impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Evolution and natural selection depend on death and suffering; removing gratuitous suffering while preserving the mechanism that produced conscious life may be contradictory.
      ?

      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.

    Key Terms

    Argument from natural law regularity(as used in theology and responses to the problem of evil)
    A philosophical defense claiming that God (or nature) needs consistent, predictable rules to exist, and accepting those rules means accepting the suffering they sometimes cause.
    Gratuitous suffering(in philosophy of religion)
    Pain or hardship that seems pointless and serves no greater purpose—used as an argument against the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing God.
    Problem of evil (implied concept)(as used in theology and philosophy of religion)
    The philosophical question of how a good, all-powerful God could allow terrible suffering and pain to exist in the world.
    natural evil(Used in the context of Job's suffering and Eliphaz's attempt to explain it through moral responsibility.)
    Suffering or harm experienced by a person, as distinct from moral evil caused directly by human agency.
    natural law(Locke's Essays on the Law of Nature)
    A moral-legal framework that satisfies all the requisites of law: grounded in a superior will, rule-establishing, and binding on humans

    Connections

    1 topic

    Problem of Evil1 linked

    Related

    A world with natural laws could permit animal death without childhood cancer; th...Evolution and natural selection depend on death and suffering; removing gratuito...God's allowing natural evils is justified.If God designed natural laws, He could have set their parameters to reduce extre...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    +3 moreShow less
    Natural law regularity explains why suffering exists as a category, but cannot j...Natural laws that permit some suffering necessarily permit the severe cases; eli...The distinction between 'necessary natural evil' and 'gratuitous suffering' assu...