Presentation on theme: "Phil 1000 Bradley Monton Class 4 The Problem of Evil."— Presentation transcript:
Phil 1000 Bradley Monton Class 4 The Problem of Evil
The “Fine-Tuning” version of the Argument from Design Premise 1: Some of the values of the fundamental constants are fine-tuned for life. It follows that, if God doesn’t exist, it’s improbable that the values of the constants are life-permitting. Premise 2: If God does exist, it’s expected that the values of the constants are life-permitting. Conclusion: The fact that the values of the constants are life-permitting provides evidence for the existence of God.
The Many Universes Reply to the Fine-Tuning Argument Maybe there are many universes in existence, in addition to our own, and different universes have different values of the fundamental constants. Then, even if God doesn’t exist, it’s not surprising that we find ourselves in a universe where the values of the constants are life-permitting.
The Existence of Evil Proves That God Does Not Exist Premise 1: If an omnibenevolent being exists, then it wouldn’t want evil things to happen. Premise 2: If an omnipotent being exists, then it would have the power to prevent evil things from happening. Premise 3: If an omniscient being exists, then it would know whether an evil thing was going to happen. Premise 4: Evil things happen. Conclusion: There is no omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient being.
The Free Will Defense Objection: God gave us free will, and that includes the freedom to do evil. Reply #1: Would an omnibenevolent God give us the freedom to do that much evil? Reply #2: Not all evil is the result of human action.
The Human Epistemic Limitation Defense, Version 1 Objection: The ways of God are mysterious. We don’t understand why God allows events to occur. Reply: Our reasoning is good enough to see that there’s no good reason for some evils to occur.
The Human Epistemic Limitation Defense, Version 2 Objection: The ways of God are mysterious. What seems evil to us might actually be good to God. Reply: We should be more confident in our moral judgments than this, otherwise we couldn’t accuse anyone of doing something morally wrong.
The Necessity of Evil Defense, Version 1 Objection: There has to be evil for there to be good. Reply: But does there have to be this much evil? Also, is it really the case that God doesn’t have any other way of ensuring that good things occur?
The Necessity of Evil Defense, Version 2 Objection: There has to be evil, in order for us to even understand what’s good. Reply: This much evil? Also, couldn’t we learn about evil other ways, from fictional stories, or just from God implanting the idea of evil in our heads?
The Necessity of Evil Defense, Version 3 Objection: There has to be evil, in order for us to develop spiritually. Reply: This much evil? Also, just because something good comes of an act, it doesn’t follow that the act itself is morally justified. If God makes evil things happen in order to achieve beneficial results, it doesn’t follow that God is morally justified in making those evil things happen.