Phil 101 - Second Excercise Question

Phil 101 - Second Excercise Question - Simon Wong Phil 101...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Simon Wong 2/20/06 Phil 101 – Second Assignment TA: Joe Yardbrough 1.) Plantinga is trying to tackle the “problem of evil.” The atheist argument put forth by Mackie is the existence of evil and God are inconsistent (and contradictory) therefore an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God can not exist (since we know evil exists). As a response to this argument, a theist’s task is to prove that there is in fact no inconsistency. According to Plantinga, proving that there is no inconsistency between the existence of God and evil is sufficient to weaken the atheist’s “problem of evil.” By using the Free Will Defense, Plantinga proves that God’s existence is possible which is directly contradictory to the atheist claim that God does not exist. 2.) To support Plantinga’s claim that the existence of God and evil is not inconsistent; Plantinga tells us a consistent story. God, an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good entity creates a world containing evil and has a good reason for doing so. One possible reason for God
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 10/23/2008 for the course PHIL 1101 taught by Professor Weatherson,b during the Spring '06 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 2

Phil 101 - Second Excercise Question - Simon Wong Phil 101...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online