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
    This theodicy is inadequate as a complete response to the... — Carmelics
    Home/Problem of Evil
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    This theodicy is inadequate as a complete response to the problem of evil.

    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.Natural evil theodicies (e.g., soul-making) address only suffering from natural causes, leaving gratuitous human-caused suffering entirely unexplained.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hick's Irenaean theodicy explicitly concedes moral evil requires a separate free will defense, confirming no single theodicy is complete.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A response that leaves an entire category of evil unaddressed cannot constitute an adequate complete theodicy by any standard of logical sufficiency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rowe's evidential argument shows that even if natural evil had justification, the sheer scale of moral evil like genocide provides independent probabilistic evidence against theism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Logical completeness requires that a theodicy account for all morally relevant instances of evil, not merely a proper subset of them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.This theodicy provides no account of moral evil.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.No other theodicy appears to provide a satisfactory justification for God's allowing moral evil.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If other theodicies could provide a justification for God's allowing moral evil, moral evil would not be a problem, but no satisfactory justification appears to be available.
      ?

      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 response that leaves an entire category of evil unaddressed cannot constitute ...Hick's Irenaean theodicy explicitly concedes moral evil requires a separate free...If other theodicies could provide a justification for God's allowing moral evil,...Logical completeness requires that a theodicy account for all morally relevant i...
    +4 moreShow less
    Natural evil theodicies (e.g., soul-making) address only suffering from natural ...No other theodicy appears to provide a satisfactory justification for God's allo...Rowe's evidential argument shows that even if natural evil had justification, th...This theodicy provides no account of moral evil.

    Similar

    This theodicy provides no account of moral evil.83%No other theodicy appears to provide a satisfactory justification for ...82%If other theodicies could provide a justification for God's allowing m...82%A theodicy must specify reasons that would suffice to justify an omnip...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: evil

    Details

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