PHIL 347 3 Exam Complete Questions With 100% Verified
Answers Graded A+
Epicurean's problem of evil
1. If God is powerful he can remove evil
2. If God is good he is willing to remove evil
3. Evil exists
4. God does not exist
Assumptions of Epicurean's problem of evil 3
1. God does what he wills
2. God does what he wills right away
3. It makes sense to attribute human traits to God
Decartes obj to Assumptions of Epicurean's problem of evil
human concepts don't apply to inf being
Traditional christian response to Epicurean's POE
evil is necessary for good
Traditional islamic response to Epicurean's POE
good & evil are subjective and all is created by God
- God is not obligate to humans
Mackie's POE
1. God is omnipotent
2. God is perfectly good
3. Evil exists
4. no limitations to omnipotence
5. a good being eliminates/prevents evil as far as it can
standard vs. non-standard view on omnipotence
follows logic vs. doesn't
Platinga's free will defence (response to Mackie) step 1
- just for evil
consistency proposal - to find that A and B is consistent, find variable C which along
with A, implies B
Variable C for platinga's consistency proposal
moral goodness presupposes freedom, God is morally good and it is possible for people
to suffer from trans-world depravity
- Hence it is consistent with God's attributes to actualize a world in which there is evil
incompatibilist vs. compatibalist view on free will
determinism incompatible with free will vs. is compatible
- God weakly vs. strongly actualizes world
Transworld Depravity
Every possible world must contain evil
Step 2 of plagtina's free will defence
- covers reason for vast amount of evil
It is consistent with God's attributes that axiological value be maximized in the
actualized world, it is also possible that this amount of goodness cannot be had without
Answers Graded A+
Epicurean's problem of evil
1. If God is powerful he can remove evil
2. If God is good he is willing to remove evil
3. Evil exists
4. God does not exist
Assumptions of Epicurean's problem of evil 3
1. God does what he wills
2. God does what he wills right away
3. It makes sense to attribute human traits to God
Decartes obj to Assumptions of Epicurean's problem of evil
human concepts don't apply to inf being
Traditional christian response to Epicurean's POE
evil is necessary for good
Traditional islamic response to Epicurean's POE
good & evil are subjective and all is created by God
- God is not obligate to humans
Mackie's POE
1. God is omnipotent
2. God is perfectly good
3. Evil exists
4. no limitations to omnipotence
5. a good being eliminates/prevents evil as far as it can
standard vs. non-standard view on omnipotence
follows logic vs. doesn't
Platinga's free will defence (response to Mackie) step 1
- just for evil
consistency proposal - to find that A and B is consistent, find variable C which along
with A, implies B
Variable C for platinga's consistency proposal
moral goodness presupposes freedom, God is morally good and it is possible for people
to suffer from trans-world depravity
- Hence it is consistent with God's attributes to actualize a world in which there is evil
incompatibilist vs. compatibalist view on free will
determinism incompatible with free will vs. is compatible
- God weakly vs. strongly actualizes world
Transworld Depravity
Every possible world must contain evil
Step 2 of plagtina's free will defence
- covers reason for vast amount of evil
It is consistent with God's attributes that axiological value be maximized in the
actualized world, it is also possible that this amount of goodness cannot be had without
