Phil 347 FINAL Exam Questions and Answers
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
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
