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 evidential argument from evil, as Draper formulates it, challenges not theism simpliciter but the likelihood ratio between theism and naturalism.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Even if evil is more probable under naturalism, this doesn't avoid undercutting core theistic commitments about omnipotence and benevolence unless both are retained.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Comparing likelihoods between theism and naturalism presupposes prior probabilities and background knowledge that heavily favor one framework, making the comparison circular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Draper's approach still requires showing evil makes theism less probable than alternatives—not merely that naturalism predicts evil better, which are different claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Draper's formulation explicitly compares P(evil|theism) to P(evil|naturalism), making it a comparative likelihood argument rather than absolute refutation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Theistic responses can preserve God's existence by adjusting auxiliary hypotheses about divine purposes, showing the argument targets comparative plausibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Naturalism predicts indifference to suffering; theism predicts benevolent intervention—their predicted frequencies of evil genuinely differ in probabilistic strength.
      ?

      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.