Phil 347 FINAL Exam Questions With 100%
Verified Answers Graded A+
The logical problem of evil
The world is full of evil- theist and athesit agree. All knowing god knows there is evil, all good being
would stop it and all powerful could stop it. All three can not stay if evil exists.
Free will defense
God maximized the goodness in the world by creating free being. A free being means that we have
the choice to do evil things- A choice that some of us exercise. This preserves Gods goodness because
he created the best possible world by making us free and preserves his knowledge and power
becuase he knows about evil and could stop it but wants to maintain our freedom. The issue with this
is that it only focuses on moral evil which is evil committed on purpose by humans. This does not
resolve the issue of natural evil like earthquakes.
Epicurus Restated
1) If God is almighty, he can remove all evil.
2) If God is all good, he would will to remove all evil
3) But there is Evil
4C) Hence, it isn't the case that God is almighty and all good.
Epicurus and the problem of evil
God is either:
1) Wills but is unable
2) Able and unwilling
3) Neither willing nor able
4) He is both willing and able
If (1) He is feeble, not a characteristic of God.
If (2) He is envious, not a characteristic of God.
If (3) He is both envious and feeble, not a characteristic of God
If (4) which is the only possible one suitable for God, from what source are evils or why does He not
remove them?
Mackie Restated
1) God is Omni potent
2) God is Wholly good
3) Evil Exists
4) A good thing always eliminates (prevents the occurrence of) evil as far as it can
5) There are no limits to what an omnipotnent thing can do
6) Hence a good, omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely
7) Hence contradiction
Trans World Depravity
Consider all possible (not actual) worlds in which you always choose the right.
In all those, there will be a subpart of the world that says you were free to choose a certain right or
wrong action, but does not say whether you chose it.
If that subpart were actual (in the real world), then you'd chose the wrong.
Objection to Plantinga (Which philosopher said this??)
1)There are possible worlds in which people freely do only good.
, 2) Only works if it is part of traditional theism that Gods Omnibenevolence implies that God would
prevent all evil.
Plantingas Free will defense (A response to Mackies Logical argument from evil)
He wants to offer a cause and effect for the proof of 1-3. He needs to stay consistent with 1 and 2 and
together with 1 and 2 imply 3. He does this by use of Trans World Depravity.
1) An omnipotent, all good God Exists.
2) Possible every poerson suffers from trans world depravity
3) God actualizes a world with moral good
4C) Evil exists.
Plantingas Quantitative Free Will Defense
1. A perfectly good God exists
2. Possible every person has TWD
3. God actualizes a world with as much good and evil as this world- possibly this is the best world that
can be actualize
4. There exists evil of the amount found in this world
--Plantinga is here assuming that it is consistent with Gods goodness to actualize whatever world has
the greatest possible amount and proportion of good and evil regardless of what that amount and
proportion is.
Plantingas Free will defense Extended
1) An Omni God exists
2) Possibly TWD
3) God creates a world with as much good as bad
4) There exists evil of the amount found in our world
Mackies Objection to Plantingas FWD
Logically possible for God to create a world where free agents always do only good.
Sobels Objection to Plantingas FWD
Plantinga has given us no argument establishing that TWD exists
Trans World Sanctity (TWS)
The property of doing the right thing in every possible world.
Howard Synder Objection to Plantingas FWD
1) It is reasonable to refrain from denying that TWS is possible
2)The possibility of TWS implies TWD is impossible
3) Hence it is reasonable to refrain from asserting that TWD is possible
Hume on the Problem of Evil
If the term all good could be applied to a being on analogy with how it is applied human, then
1) That being wouldnt will any human to be unhappy
2) That being would will all to be happy
Verified Answers Graded A+
The logical problem of evil
The world is full of evil- theist and athesit agree. All knowing god knows there is evil, all good being
would stop it and all powerful could stop it. All three can not stay if evil exists.
Free will defense
God maximized the goodness in the world by creating free being. A free being means that we have
the choice to do evil things- A choice that some of us exercise. This preserves Gods goodness because
he created the best possible world by making us free and preserves his knowledge and power
becuase he knows about evil and could stop it but wants to maintain our freedom. The issue with this
is that it only focuses on moral evil which is evil committed on purpose by humans. This does not
resolve the issue of natural evil like earthquakes.
Epicurus Restated
1) If God is almighty, he can remove all evil.
2) If God is all good, he would will to remove all evil
3) But there is Evil
4C) Hence, it isn't the case that God is almighty and all good.
Epicurus and the problem of evil
God is either:
1) Wills but is unable
2) Able and unwilling
3) Neither willing nor able
4) He is both willing and able
If (1) He is feeble, not a characteristic of God.
If (2) He is envious, not a characteristic of God.
If (3) He is both envious and feeble, not a characteristic of God
If (4) which is the only possible one suitable for God, from what source are evils or why does He not
remove them?
Mackie Restated
1) God is Omni potent
2) God is Wholly good
3) Evil Exists
4) A good thing always eliminates (prevents the occurrence of) evil as far as it can
5) There are no limits to what an omnipotnent thing can do
6) Hence a good, omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely
7) Hence contradiction
Trans World Depravity
Consider all possible (not actual) worlds in which you always choose the right.
In all those, there will be a subpart of the world that says you were free to choose a certain right or
wrong action, but does not say whether you chose it.
If that subpart were actual (in the real world), then you'd chose the wrong.
Objection to Plantinga (Which philosopher said this??)
1)There are possible worlds in which people freely do only good.
, 2) Only works if it is part of traditional theism that Gods Omnibenevolence implies that God would
prevent all evil.
Plantingas Free will defense (A response to Mackies Logical argument from evil)
He wants to offer a cause and effect for the proof of 1-3. He needs to stay consistent with 1 and 2 and
together with 1 and 2 imply 3. He does this by use of Trans World Depravity.
1) An omnipotent, all good God Exists.
2) Possible every poerson suffers from trans world depravity
3) God actualizes a world with moral good
4C) Evil exists.
Plantingas Quantitative Free Will Defense
1. A perfectly good God exists
2. Possible every person has TWD
3. God actualizes a world with as much good and evil as this world- possibly this is the best world that
can be actualize
4. There exists evil of the amount found in this world
--Plantinga is here assuming that it is consistent with Gods goodness to actualize whatever world has
the greatest possible amount and proportion of good and evil regardless of what that amount and
proportion is.
Plantingas Free will defense Extended
1) An Omni God exists
2) Possibly TWD
3) God creates a world with as much good as bad
4) There exists evil of the amount found in our world
Mackies Objection to Plantingas FWD
Logically possible for God to create a world where free agents always do only good.
Sobels Objection to Plantingas FWD
Plantinga has given us no argument establishing that TWD exists
Trans World Sanctity (TWS)
The property of doing the right thing in every possible world.
Howard Synder Objection to Plantingas FWD
1) It is reasonable to refrain from denying that TWS is possible
2)The possibility of TWS implies TWD is impossible
3) Hence it is reasonable to refrain from asserting that TWD is possible
Hume on the Problem of Evil
If the term all good could be applied to a being on analogy with how it is applied human, then
1) That being wouldnt will any human to be unhappy
2) That being would will all to be happy
