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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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