Phil 347 MT3 Exam Questions With 100% Verified Answers Graded A+
2 views 0 purchase
Course
PHIL 347
Institution
PHIL 347
Phil 347 MT3 Exam Questions With 100% Verified Answers Graded A+
what are the 4 possible relationships of God to evil and how do they accord with God's character (4)
- God is willing and able to get rid of evil (this one accords with the character of God)
- God is willing and unable to get rid o...
Phil 347 MT3 Exam Questions With 100%
Verified Answers Graded A+
what are the 4 possible relationships of God to evil and how do they accord with God's character (4)
- God is willing and able to get rid of evil (this one accords with the character of God)
- God is willing and unable to get rid of evil (makes God feeble)
- God is unwilling and able to get rid of evil (makes God lacking in goodness)
- God is unwilling and unable to get rid of evil (makes God envious AND feeble)
what is the gut conclusion to the premises "God is willing and able to remove evil" + "there is evil"?
- God does not exert providence
lay out Epicurus's argument from evil? (7)
0) God is a powerful, good being
1) If God is powerful he can remove evil
2) If God is good, he wills to remove evil
3) But evil exists
4) God can and wills to remove evil
5) Hence evil doesn't exist
- 5 contradicts 3 (this argument does not conclude against an intelligence / first cause)
Define "can" and "wills" (2)
- Can = is able to do X
- Wills = wants to do X
What assumptions are necessary for Epicurus's argument from evil and are they true?
- God achieves what God wills / wishes (not true: God wishes that I not do bad things, yet I do bad
things)
- God does RIGHT NOW whatever God wills RIGHT NOW
- It makes sense to ascribe these things to God, an infinite being
what are some "solutions" to the Epicurean argument from evil (4)
- "God is not good"
- "God is not powerful"
- "There is no evil"
- "God is good but it doesn't follow that God removes evil right now"
list traditional responses to the Epicurean argument from evil (2)
- it is wrong to believe that God wishes to remove evil from amongst humans (stoics view / pre
christianity / greek, God is unconcerned with human affairs)
- traditional christian responses (St. Augustine, Aquinas, Martin Luther)
- Islamic response
outline St. Augustine's response to Epicurean argument from evil
- we don't know that God does not remove evil (e.g. after death)
outline Aquinas's response to Epicurean argument from evil
- if two contraries be infinite, one would be destroyed (therefore evil should not exist)
- quotes St. Augustine, good can be produced from evil
, outline Martin Luther's response to Epicurean argument from evil (3)
- the wicked flourish in their bodies but lose in their souls
- Christian faith provides a way out, there will be a reckoning with evil
- the Gospel and grace block the proposal that God does not remove evil
outline the Islamic response to Epicurean argument from evil (5)
- ash'arite / suni theology specifically
- Mu'tazilite (Christianity influenced): God cannot decree what is unjust, man's freedom at the price of
God's (NOT the ash'arite view)
- boldly denies the existence of objective moral facts, it is fallacious to call things "evil"
- God is not "morally good" but acts according to his wisdom and nature
- no theodicy is meaningful because we cannot ascribe the same traits to God
outline Mackie's argument from evil (5)
- God is omnipotent
- God is wholly good
- Evil exists
- There is no limit to what an omnipotent being can do (implied from 1)
- A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can (implied from 2)
what is the standard western philosophy on omnipotence (2)
- God cannot defy lows of logic / nonsense (St. Anselm)
- the Trinity is not nonsense (God is one BEING but three PERSONS)
outline Kraal's strengthening of Mackie's argument (2)
- God PREVENTS the occurrence of evil
- God cannot do nonsense
outline Kraal's response to Plantinga's objection to Mackie's argument from evil (4)
- Plantinga regards Mackie's point 5 (a good being always eliminates evil as far as it can) as a
necessary truth
- Mackie is a moral non-realist: naturalism and moral realism don't square together
- Mackie is saying that this is part of what the theist believes
- to bury Mackie's argument we need to see if the theist believes this
what is the aim of Plantinga's response to Mackie's argument from evil (3)
- preliminary project: argue that Mackie's argument is unsound
- goal: positively prove consistency between God and evil
- find a consistency proof for "there is a perfectly good God (theism)" and "there is evil"
how does a consistency proof work? (3)
- find a proposition C that,
- is formally consistent with A
- and jointly with A implies B
what is Plantinga's proposition C in his consistency proof (3)
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller LectAziim. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $10.09. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
