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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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