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 hypothesis of indifference (HI) does not clearly enta... — Carmelics
    Home/Problem of Evil
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The hypothesis of indifference (HI) does not clearly entail the negation of theism (T).

    Problem of Evil
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On Leibnizian grounds, even a perfectly good God might actualize a world whose surface distribution of goods and evils is indistinguishable from one produced by blind forces.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the best feasible world contains suffering statistically identical to what HI predicts, HI's predictive success provides no differential evidence against theism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Alston's epistemic humility argument establishes that humans lack the cognitive resources to identify which goods require which evils, undermining confidence that HI uniquely explains observed suffering.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If we cannot reliably determine what a perfect being would permit, we cannot treat HI's explanatory fit as decisively superior to theism's explanatory fit over the same data.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.It is logically possible that an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being created a neutral environment in which evolution could take place in a chancy way and afterwards did not intervene in any way.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If such a scenario is possible, then theism (T) could be true while the hypothesis of indifference (HI) is also true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, it is not obvious that HI is logically incompatible with theism.
      ?

      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

    Alston's epistemic humility argument establishes that humans lack the cognitive ...If such a scenario is possible, then theism (T) could be true while the hypothes...If the best feasible world contains suffering statistically identical to what HI...If we cannot reliably determine what a perfect being would permit, we cannot tre...
    +3 moreShow less
    It is logically possible that an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect bei...On Leibnizian grounds, even a perfectly good God might actualize a world whose s...Therefore, it is not obvious that HI is logically incompatible with theism.

    Similar

    If such a scenario is possible, then theism (T) could be true while th...91%The indirect inductive approach argues that there is such an alternati...80%There exists a hypothesis that is logically incompatible with theism.80%If there is some alternative hypothesis that is logically incompatible...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: evil
    View source passageHide passage
    There are various points at which one might respond to this argument. First, it might be argued that the assumption that the hypothesis of indifference is logically incompatible with theism is not obviously true. For might it not be logically possible that there was an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being who created a neutral environment in which evolution could take place in a chancy way, and who afterwards did not intervene in any way? But, if so, then while \(T\) would be true, \(HI\) might also be true—as it would be if there were no other nonhuman persons. So, at the very l...

    Details

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