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
    Versions of the argument from evil differ significantly w... — Carmelics
    Home/Problem of Evil
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Versions of the argument from evil differ significantly with respect to what the relevant fact about evil is.

    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
    ?
    • 1.Sometimes the appeal is to the mere existence of any evil whatever.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sometimes it is to the existence of a certain amount of evil.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Sometimes it is to the existence of evils of a certain specified sort.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The tripartite distinction collapses under scrutiny: any specified evil presupposes a quantity, and any quantity presupposes existence, making these logically nested rather than genuinely distinct.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Plantinga's free will defense and Hick's soul-making theodicy both operate across all three categories simultaneously, suggesting the categories lack differential argumentative force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rowe's evidential argument demonstrates that the operative logical structure—whether existence, amount, or type—depends entirely on background assumptions about divine omnipotence, not on evil's phenomenology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the argumentative work is done by theological premises rather than evil's character, then apparent variation in evil-focused versions is superficial re-description of a single underlying inference form.
      ?

      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

    If the argumentative work is done by theological premises rather than evil's cha...Plantinga's free will defense and Hick's soul-making theodicy both operate acros...Rowe's evidential argument demonstrates that the operative logical structure—whe...Sometimes it is to the existence of a certain amount of evil.
    +3 moreShow less
    Sometimes it is to the existence of evils of a certain specified sort.Sometimes the appeal is to the mere existence of any evil whatever.The tripartite distinction collapses under scrutiny: any specified evil presuppo...

    Similar

    The argument from evil may or may not be sound, since one or more of i...86%The argument from evil should be formulated as an evidential (inductiv...84%Even if the evidential argument from evil is sound, its conclusion is ...84%Any axiological formulation of the argument from evil is incomplete in...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: evil
    View source passageHide passage
    Any version of the argument from evil claims that there is some fact concerning the evil in the world such that the existence of God—understood as at least a very powerful, very knowledgeable, and morally very good person, and, ideally, as an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person—is either logically precluded, or rendered unlikely, by that fact. But versions of the argument often differ quite significantly with respect to what the relevant fact is. Sometimes, as in premise (5) in the argument set out above, the appeal is to the mere existence of any evil whatever. Sometimes, on...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The premises enumerate three distinct types of facts about evil that different versions of the argument appeal to, which directly supports the conclusion that versions differ significantly in what relevant fact they cite, and this argument is explicitly present in the source passage.

    Confidence: Straightforward taxonomic argument explicitly stated in the text.

    Details

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