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 equiprobability-principle approach to the inductive s... — Carmelics
    Home/Problem of Evil
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The equiprobability-principle approach to the inductive step in the argument from evil is superior to alternative accounts.

    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
    ?
    • 1.By bringing in an equiprobability principle, one approaches the issue at a more fundamental level than any approach that appeals either to instantial generalization or inference to the best explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This approach generates a result that enables one not just to conclude that it is more likely than not that God does not exist, but also to assign an upper bound to the probability that God exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Equiprobability principles (e.g., the Principle of Indifference) notoriously generate contradictions when applied to infinite or continuous possibility spaces.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The space of possible divine reasons for permitting evil is plausibly infinite and lacks a natural partition, making any equiprobability assignment arbitrary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An approach that yields precise probability bounds via an arbitrary partition is epistemically worse than inference to the best explanation, which makes no such spurious precision claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wykstra and other skeptical theists argue that human cognitive access to the full range of divine goods and reasons is systematically limited, undermining any probability assignment over that space.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If our epistemic position regarding divine motivations is analogous to a child's regarding a surgeon's reasons, then assigning equal priors to possible divine reasons commits a base-rate error rooted in anthropocentric bias.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Inference to the best explanation, by contrast, does not require exhaustive enumeration of alternatives and is therefore less vulnerable to the skeptical theist's scope objection.
      ?

      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

    An approach that yields precise probability bounds via an arbitrary partition is...By bringing in an equiprobability principle, one approaches the issue at a more ...Equiprobability principles (e.g., the Principle of Indifference) notoriously gen...If our epistemic position regarding divine motivations is analogous to a child's...
    +4 moreShow less
    Inference to the best explanation, by contrast, does not require exhaustive enum...The space of possible divine reasons for permitting evil is plausibly infinite a...This approach generates a result that enables one not just to conclude that it i...Wykstra and other skeptical theists argue that human cognitive access to the ful...

    Similar

    By bringing in an equiprobability principle, one approaches the issue ...82%A substantive theory of inductive logic, or logical probability, can b...81%The argument from evil should be formulated as an evidential (inductiv...80%The argument from evil supports only a probabilistic conclusion.76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: evil
    View source passageHide passage
    If the argument from evil is given an evidential formulation, what form should that take? There appear to be four main possibilities that have been suggested in recent discussions. The first, which might be called the direct inductive approach, involves the idea that one can show that theism is unlikely to be true without comparing theism with any alternative hypothesis, other than the mere denial of theism. At the heart of this first approach, which was set out by William Rowe, is the idea that one sound type of inductive inference is what might be referred to as instantial generalization, w...

    Details

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