Premise 2 makes an extreme claim • traditional

Info iconThis preview shows pages 3–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Premise 2 makes an extreme claim • Traditional theodicy has claimed that some evils have the property of being “soul-building” • Soul-building evils are ones that makes us better people • Sometimes it is suggested that when people are destroyed by the sufferings they endure, the souls of other people are strengthened by watching this happen • No credit if God simply just gave us strong souls • Conclusion: The deeper problem is to explain why there is so much evil, rather than one ounce less. What is the second version of the argument? • (1) If God were to exist, then that being would be all-PKG. (4) If an all-PKG being existed, then the amount of evil would not exceed a soul-building minimum. (5) The amount of evil does exceed a soul-building minimum.------------------------------ Hence, there is no God. • Project of theodicy is to show that premise (4) is mistaken • Conclusion: Shows that being free and always doing what’s right are not incompatible. What is the third version of the argument? • (1) If God were to exist, then that being would be all-PKG. (6) If an all-PKG being existed, then there would be no more evil than the minimum required for a soul-building and as a consequence of human freedom. (7) The quantity of evil found in human history exceeds the minimum required for soul-building and as a consequence of human freedom.------------------------------- Hence, there is no God. What is a criticism of the argument? • If God exists, he is vastly more intelligent then we are. • Conclusion: It therefore is entirely possible that his plan for the world contains elements that we cannot understand or even imagine. (Don’t know if premise 6 is true.) What is another kind of argument---the evidential argument from evil? • If an all-PKG God exists, then evils of kind X will not exist. Evils of kind X do exist.----------------------------- No all-PKG God exists. • Hard to show premise 1 is true • Conclusion: Surprise Principle describes what “strong” evidence means. Pages 293 – 303: What is free will? • What you now believe and the preferences you now have can be traced back to experiences you have had which was caused by items in your physical environment • Your beliefs and desires are caused by things outside your control • Distant Causation Argument: focused on the idea that our behaviors are caused by factors (our genes and early childhood environment) that were beyond our control • Could-Not-Have-Done-Otherwise Argument: focused on the claim that we can’t act other than the way our beliefs and desires cause us to act • People who do what they do because of brainwashing aren’t acting of their own free will • Obsessive compulsive behavior is not free behavior • Kleptomaniacs do not have free will • Idea that we are part of the causal network. Our actions don’t spring from nothing; rather, they trace back to the beliefs, desires, and other mental features we possess. These mental characteristics came from our genes and environment....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page3 / 4

Premise 2 makes an extreme claim • Traditional theodicy...

This preview shows document pages 3 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

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