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 theodicy establishes not only what errors God can all... — Carmelics
    Home/Problem of Evil
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The theodicy establishes not only what errors God can allow but also what errors God cannot allow

    Against a future action of GodProblem 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
    ?
    • 1.Theodicy explains the kinds of error God can permit (those resulting from the perceiver's misuse of free will)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Errors on occasions of clear and distinct perception would be God's fault, not the perceiver's
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.God, being all-perfect, cannot be the cause of error
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.God's omnipotence entails the power to permit error even on occasions of clear and distinct perception, since omnipotence cannot be bounded by epistemic categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Descartes' own demon hypothesis demonstrates that a being of sufficient power could systematically deceive even the most careful perceiver, undermining the clear/distinct distinction as a reliable limit on divine permission.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz's theodicy in the Theodicée shows that a perfect God may permit any finite evil—including cognitive error—if it serves the best possible world, with no category of error logically immune from divine allowance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Cartesian identification of God's perfection with non-deception conflates metaphysical perfection with a specific moral constraint, a conflation Malebranche's occasionalism explicitly rejects by permitting God to act through imperfect general laws that produce error.
      ?

      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 EvilAgainst a future action of God

    Notable Defenders

    HatfieldcontemporaryHatfield 2006, 135
    LennoncontemporaryLennon 2008, 167
    Michael AyerscontemporaryReferenced as endorsing the Sisyphus-like predicament reading of unbounded doubt
    Descartesmodern
    DescartesmodernSecond Meditation (Meditationes de Prima Philosophia)
    Gisbertus VoetiusmodernRecipient of Descartes' May 1643 letter (AT 8b:60)
    René DescartesmodernMeditations on First Philosophy, Third and Fourth Meditations
    René Descartesmodern
    René DescartesmodernMeditations on First Philosophy, Meditation 2 (AT 7:29, CSM 2:19)
    René DescartesmodernSecond Replies
    René DescartesmodernMeditations on First Philosophy, Sixth Meditation
    René DescartesmodernPrincipia Philosophiae 1:7 (AT8a:7, CSM 1:195); Meditations on First Philosophy
    René DescartesmodernMeditations on First Philosophy, AT 7:21, CSM 2:15
    René DescartesmodernMeditations on First Philosophy (Sixth Meditation)
    René DescartesmodernMeditations on First Philosophy (Fourth and Fifth Meditations); Letter to Voetius, May 1643, AT 8b:60, CSMK 222
    René DescartesmodernMeditations on First Philosophy, Sixth Meditation (AT 7:71, CSM 2:50)

    Connections

    4 topics

    Against an aspect of God1 linkedAgainst an attribute of God1 linkedTruth & Knowledge1 linked

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: descartes-epistemology
    View source passageHide passage
    Not only is the theodicy used to explain the kinds of error God can allow, it serves to clarify the kinds of error God cannot allow. From the latter arises a proof of the C&D Rule. God can allow errors that are my fault, but not errors that would be God’s fault. On occasions when my perception is clear and distinct, my assent is involuntary and thus not a result of a misuse of my freewill. In such cases, assent is a necessary consequence of my cognitive nature – a point made in many passages
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Free Will & Foreknowledge
    1 linked

    Related

    Descartes' own demon hypothesis demonstrates that a being of sufficient power co...Errors on occasions of clear and distinct perception would be God's fault, not t...God's omnipotence entails the power to permit error even on occasions of clear a...God, being all-perfect, cannot be the cause of error
    +3 moreShow less
    Leibniz's theodicy in the Theodicée shows that a perfect God may permit any fini...The Cartesian identification of God's perfection with non-deception conflates me...Theodicy explains the kinds of error God can permit (those resulting from the pe...

    Similar

    This theodicy is inadequate as a complete response to the problem of e...79%Theodicy explains the kinds of error God can permit (those resulting f...78%A theodicy must specify reasons that would suffice to justify an omnip...77%No other theodicy appears to provide a satisfactory justification for ...74%
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit