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 probability that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person must be very low indeed.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The inference from 'no known rightmaking property justifies this suffering' to 'no rightmaking property justifies this suffering' commits the fallacy of epistemic hubris, as Wykstra's CORNEA principle demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A being of infinite cognitive depth would possess morally relevant reasons so far exceeding human comprehension that our probability estimates over unknown justifiers are not merely uncertain but systematically unreliable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Because the sample space of possible divine reasons is not bounded by human cognition, Bayesian calculations treating unknown rightmakers as low-probability are methodologically ill-formed from the outset.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Swinburne and van Inwagen argue that the goods of soul-making, moral agency, and epistemic freedom require a world with precisely the kind and quantity of suffering we observe, making high suffering counts evidentially neutral.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the threshold quantity of suffering necessary to produce serious moral agents and deep compassion is empirically indeterminate, then a large n of suffering cases cannot by itself lower the probability of theism without begging the question against these theodicies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Of the billions of people and sentient non-persons who have existed, the proportion who have never suffered in ways such that the known wrongmaking properties of allowing such suffering outweighed the known rightmaking properties must be small.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The upper bound on the probability that unknown rightmaking properties outweigh known wrongmaking properties in any given case is very low.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Accordingly, the number n of cases of such suffering must be extremely large, which drives the overall probability very low.
      ?

      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.