Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Problem of Evil 2.argument PDF

    Uploaded by

    lostopopo
    39 views2 pages
    The free will is false because there are good states of affairs that God cannot bring about without permitting The existence of evil. Being significantly free means being free with respect to a morally significant action. God could only prevent free creatures from performing. Morally evil acts by also preventing them from performing morally good acts.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    problem of evil 2.argument.pdf

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The free will is false because there are good states of affairs that God cannot bring about without permitting The existence of evil. Being significantly free means being free with respect to a morally significant action. God could only prevent free creatures from performing. Morally evil acts by also preventing them from performing morally good acts.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    39 views2 pages

    Problem of Evil 2.argument PDF

    Uploaded by

    lostopopo
    The free will is false because there are good states of affairs that God cannot bring about without permitting The existence of evil. Being significantly free means being free with respect to a morally significant action. God could only prevent free creatures from performing. Morally evil acts by also preventing them from performing morally good acts.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    PhilosophyofReligion ProblemofEvil:Handout2 The Argument: 1) Evil exists 2) If God exists, He would want to prevent all evil.

    3) If God exists, He would be able to prevent all evil. 4) If (3) and (4) then, if God exists, there would be no evil. 5) Therefore, if God exists, there would be no evil. 6) Therefore, God does not exist. TheFreeWillDefense: (2)isfalsebecausetherearegoodstatesofaffairsthatGodcannotbringabout withoutpermittingtheexistenceofevil. Beingfreewithrespecttoanactionmeansyoucanperformornotperforman action;causalormetaphysicallawsdonotdeterminewhatyouwilldo.Being significantlyfreemeansbeingfreewithrespecttoamorallysignificantaction. Aworldcontainingcreatureswhoaresignificantlyfreeismorevaluable,allelse beingequal,thanaworldcontainingnofreecreaturesatall.(p.328) Godcouldonlypreventfreecreaturesfromperformingmorallyevilactsbyalso preventingthemfromperformingmorallygoodacts. Godcannotcreatesomeworlds;HecannotcreateaworldwhereIwouldfreely performactionXinsomecircumstanceC,Cobtains,butIdonotdoX (GodcantmakeaworldwhereIwouldfreelyeatwafflesforbreakfast,but insteadeatpancakeseventhoughthisisntalogicalcontradiction!) Imagineitstruethat,ifyoupayme$20,IllfreelygiveyouanA.(Itsnot.)Then, Godcouldnotmakeaworldwhereyougiveme$20andIfreelyrefusethebribe. Evil(inthiscase,bribery)existsasanecessaryconsequenceofcreatingcreatures whoaresignificantlyfree. 1) WhydidGodmakemesuchthatIwouldacceptbribes? 2) Howcanwemakesenseofcausationonthisaccount,ifImfreetoaccept ornotacceptbribes? Howdoesthishelpwithnaturalevil?Maybeothersupernaturalcreaturesalsohave freewill,andtheycausediseases,earthquakes,etc.

    RoweandtheEvidentialArgumentfromEvil TheistResponsetoMackie:WecandescribeapossibilitywhereGodexists,yet evilalsoexists.Example:thefreewillresponse,Plantinga,demons,etc. AnAtheistReply:MaybetherearesomepossibilitiesaccordingtowhichbothGod andevilsexist.ThoseareallcasesinwhichGodpermitseviltoallowforagreater goodoravoidagreaterevil.But,thatsnothowthingsactuallyare!Lookaround, ourevilsdontseemtobeofthatsort. NEE(forNoExcuseEvil):aninstanceofintensehumanoranimalsufferingwhich Godcouldhavepreventedwithouttherebylosingsomegreatergoodorpermitting someevilequallybadorworse. RowesEvidentialArgumentfromEvil(restatedand(hopefully)simplified). R1.NEEsexist. R2.IfGodexists,thennoNEEsexist. R3.Therefore,Goddoesnotexist. Rowe:eventhoughwecannotdeductivelyprovethetruthofR1wehaverational groundsforbelievingittobetrue. Itseemsquiteunlikelythatalltheinstancesofintensesufferingoccurringdailyin ourworldareintimatelyrelatedtotheoccurrenceofgreatergoodsorthe preventionofevilsatleastasbad(Rowe358). TheTheistsResponse: TheDirectAttack:Provideevidenceforthefalsityof(R1). TheIndirectAttack:TheG.E.MooreShift: M1.Goddoesexist. M2.IfGodexists,thennoNEEsexist. M3.Therefore,noNEEsexist.

    You might also like