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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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