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
    The story involved in a defense must be one that is likel... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Problem of Evil
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The story involved in a defense must be one that is likely to be true.

    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
    ?
    • The previous two suggestions about what a defense requires have apparently failed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A defense requires only logical possibility, not epistemic probability, since its sole purpose is defeating a modal claim about incompatibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Plantinga's free will defense succeeds by showing God and evil are co-possible, never asserting the story is likely or actually true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Requiring likelihood conflates a defense with a theodicy, collapsing a crucial distinction in the literature since Plantinga's 'God and Other Minds'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The evidential burden placed on a defense by a likelihood requirement improperly shifts the dialectical obligation back onto the theist.
      ?

      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

    A defense requires only logical possibility, not epistemic probability, since it...Plantinga's free will defense succeeds by showing God and evil are co-possible, ...Requiring likelihood conflates a defense with a theodicy, collapsing a crucial d...The evidential burden placed on a defense by a likelihood requirement improperly...
    +1 moreShow less
    The previous two suggestions about what a defense requires have apparently faile...

    Similar

    A defense against the problem of evil does not require a story that ca...80%Even if a defensive story has some probability relative to our evident...76%If we cannot determine the probability of the story, then it cannot be...71%Theism is more likely to be false than to be true.68%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: evil
    View source passageHide passage
    Hume advanced, then, an evidential argument from evil that has a distinctly different logical form from that involved in direct inductive arguments, for the idea is to point to some proposition that is logically incompatible with theism, and then to argue that, given facts about undesirable states of affairs to be found in the world, that hypothesis is more probable than theism, and, therefore, that theism is more likely to be false than to be true.[3]:

    Details

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