PHIL 103 Quiz #2 Sherman

The Existential (or Religious) Problem of Evil

(1) At least some experiences of suffering and evil are perceived as horrendous. (2) There seems to be no good reasons for God allowing experiences of horrendous suffering and evil. (3) Therefore, at least some kinds of experiences of horrendous suffering and evil result in the perceived absence of God's presence.

Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense Logical Problem of Evil Theistic Response

(FWD) A perfectly good being might have morally sufficient reason to permit evil The value of free will might provide such a morally sufficient reason if it is impossible for God to guarantee that a world containing free creatures would be free from evil For all we know, it is impossible for God to guarantee that a world containing free creatures would be free from evil.

➢Arguments for Compatibilism

(Rejects Incompatibilism Arguments) ▪ Rejects the Origination Argument 1. The only way possible is to reject its first premise: "An agent acts with free will only if she is the originator (or ultimate source) of her actions." 2. If all that is required for free will is that a certain interconnect exists between an agent's 1st-order volitions and 2nd-order desires, then such an account does not require that an agent be the originator of those desires. ➢ Arguments for Compatibilism (Rejects Incompatibilism Arguments) ▪ Rejects the Origination Argument 3. Furthermore, a hierarchical account of the will is compatible with the truth of determinism. Also, had she had different reasons she would have willed differently. ➢ Arguments for Compatibilism (cont.)▪ Rejects the Consequence Argument 1. 2. To say that I could have done otherwise is simply to say that I would have done otherwise had I willed or chosen to do so. If determinism is true, then the only way that I could have willed or chosen to do otherwise would be if either the past or the laws were different than they actually are. In other words, saying that an agent could have done otherwise is to say that the agent would have done otherwise in a different counterfactual condition. ➢ Arguments for Compatibilism (cont.)▪ Frankfurt's Argument against "the Ability to Do Otherwise" Circumstances include some mechanism that would bring about the action if the agent did not perform it on her own. As it happens, though, the agent does perform the action freely and the mechanism is not involved in bringing about the action. It thus looks like the agent is morally responsible despite not being able to do otherwise. ➢ Arguments for Compatibilism (cont.)▪ Strawson's Reactive Attitudes 1. Strawson thinks the "truth" of determinism should not undermine our reactive attitudes (those attitudes we have toward other people based on their attitudes toward and treatment of us) ▪ Examples of reactive attitudes include gratitude, resentment, forgiveness and love. ▪ Strawson thinks that these attitudes are crucial to the interpersonal interactions and that they provide the basis for holding individuals morally responsible. ▪Strawson's Reactive Attitudes (cont.) Since moral responsibility is based on the reactive attitudes, Strawson thinks that moral responsibility is compatible with the truth of determinism. And if free will is a requirement for moralresponsibility, Strawson's argument gives support to compatibilism.

The Evidential Problem of Evil

(empirical argument) (1) If God exists, there would be no pointless evils. (2) There are pointless evils.(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

An Openness Theodicy Presented by Greg Boyd

1. Satan and the Problem of Evil ➢ The sovereign God wisely deemed it worth the risk to create angelic and human being. ➢ There is no theodicy that makes sense without the central reality of spiritual warfare and God's giving creature free will and moral choice.

Two Primary Issues are of central concern for personal identity:

1. Are human beings "causally necessitated' as the rest of creation? Hard Determinism (HD) and Soft Determinism (SD) say yes, Libertarianism (L) says no. 2. What does it amount to for an action to be done "freely"? HD and L agree that this would mean the person who performed the action was not causally determined and thus could have done otherwise.

Anselm's 2nd Ontological Argument

1. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined. 2. A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist. 3. Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God. 4. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God. 5. Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality. 6. God exists in the mind as an idea. 7. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

Suffering as Religious Experience • Presented by Laura Waddell Ekstrom

1. Far from being evidence against the existence of God, suffering may in fact be an avenue to knowledge of God. 2. Instances of suffering satisfy standard conceptions of religious experience — serve as a means of intimacy with God and sympathetic identification.

Properly Basic Beliefs Argument (Reformed Epistemology)

1. One has some ground for one's belief 2. Not that one knows [with total certainty] one's belief is true 3.) One's belief is subject to "defeaters" [and thus is fallible rather than infallible] 4.) If God exists and created us to experience him in certain ways (e.g., prayer, Christian community, Bible reading, trust), then our grounding is veridical [truthful, coincides with reality] and properly basic.

Fine Tuning argument supporting evidence

1. Rate of expansion • A slight difference (1060) and the universe would have either: Quickly collapsed, or Expanded too rapidly to form stars no life would be possible 2. Nuclear force • A 5% change to theproton/neutron binding force (weaker or stronger) and life would have been impossible. • If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, then all protons would have decayed into neutrons, or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and thus life would not be possible. 3 .Gravitational force • If Stronger or weaker by only 1 part 40 in 10 , then stars or sun would not have formed.• no life would have been possible

problems with memory view of personal identity

1. The Memory View (cont.) • Problems 1. TransitivityProblem A=B=C is denied (transitive principle) Boy scout, soldier, old man 2. The Circularity Problem (Inception) (Inception 2) • To distinguish true from false (say, implanted) memories, the memory criteria presupposes personal identity!

The Blessed Fault (felix culpa) Paradox • Presented by G. Leibniz/A. Plantinga

1. The fall of Adam is a "blessed fault" because it led to the incarnation of the Son of God. Thus, evil is accompanied by a greater good! 2. Perhaps this Incarnation is what justifies God in permitting the evils of the world 3. If this is right, then it is the value of the incarnation and atonement (perhaps in conjunction with the value of free will) that justifies God in permitting evil in the world.

Paley's Teleological Argument

1.) A watch has many complex working parts and is intelligently designed. 2.) The universe has many complex working parts. So... The universe is probably intelligently designed.

religion

1.) Constituted by a set of beliefs, actions, and experiences, both personal and corporate, organized around a concept of an Ultimate Reality which inspires worship or total devotion. 2.) A set of institutionalized rituals identified with a tradition and expressing and/or evoking sacral sentiments directly to the divine or a transdivine focus

The Monist Solution (incompatibilist libertarian)

1.) God's knowledge of the future is not direct, but indirect via "middle knowledge"—knowing all the courses of action that human agents could take in any given circumstance. Middle knowledge: the truth value of counterfactuals of freedom Counterfactuals of freedom = conditional statements about what someone with libertarian freedom would have chosen (freely) to do if things had been different 2.) Things could have been different than they, in fact, are. ▪ God could have made things differently = "many possible worlds." ▪ There is much that is not necessary about the way the world is. 3.) God cannot will a free creature to actin a particular way and the act still be free. Free actions must be self-determinative. Free creatures have the ability to choose between competing alternatives, and thus really could choose one or the other of the alternatives. 4.) Most Molinists believe free agents have counterfactual power over the past: ▪ The power to act such that, if one were to act in that way, the past would have been different from how it, in fact, was). 5.) God can desire a creature act in a particular way and may influence a free choice or persuade an agent to act in a particular way, But God's influence and persuasion cannot be determinative if the action performed is to be free. How God could cause the choice and it still be free in a meaningful way? 6.) A few thinkers are Compatibilist Molinists ▪ God creates the circumstances that bring about the outcomes that God wants. • However, this seems to be closer to determinism . . . unless there remains some level of contrary choice possible.

Paul's Apologetic Approach: Both Faith and Argument/Reason (5 relevant aspects)

1.) Knowledge and understanding: connecting with alternative world-views 2.) Humility: respect for certain religious beliefs practices even when disagreeing with them 3.) Confidence: effort to persuade others with claims, arguments, support, and witness 4.) Sacrifice: willing to suffer ridicule and persecution 5.) Obedience and Trust: obeying and trusting God for the outcome

Aquinas' Five Proofs/Ways of God's existence

1.) Motion: everything is in motion, but something set everything in motion, and something else set that in motion and so on. God is the original that set things in motion 2.) Causation: every effect has a cause, and that cause has a cause the original cause is God 3.) Contingent Beings: we are unnecessary things, that come from unnecessary things, but the original contingent being had to come form a necessary being, which would be God 4.) Origin of Human Values: because we are made in the likeness of God, our values reflect God. 5.) Teleological argument (argument from design): the world shows signs of intelligent design, the source of natural ordering must be God.

Problems with physical view of personal identity

1.) Our bodies are constantly changing 2.) The lack of mental states, consciousness, soulish, and other non-physical criteria 3.) Highly reductionist

Philosophy of Religion

1.) The attempt to analyze and critically evaluate religious belief 2.) A bona fide academic field that is as objective, rigorous, and systematic as possible 3.) The philosophical examination of the central themes and concepts involved in religious traditions 4.) Philosophy of religion is concerned with clarifying such basic religious ideas as the concept of God, trying to remove alleged inconsistencies in religious belief, probing the grounds of religious knowledge, examining the problems of religious language, as well as looking at the question of the nature of religion.

Fine Tuning Argument

1.) The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either necessity, chance, or intelligent design. 2.) The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to necessity or chance. So... The fine-tuning of the universe is due to intelligent design.

Theoretical moral argument for existence of God

1.) There are objective moral facts. 2.) God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts. 3.) Therefore, (probably) God exists.

Inductive moral argument for existence of God

1.) There are objective moral obligations. 2.) God provides the best explanation of the existence of moral obligations. 3.) Probably, God exists.

Aquinas' Cosmological Argument

1.) There is an order of [present, ongoing] causes in the world. 2.) Nothing can be the cause of itself. 3.) Hence, everything that is caused is caused by something else. 4.) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes So... There must be a first, uncaused cause.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.) The universe began to exist. 2a.) If the universe had no beginning, then an actually infinite number of events would have occurred prior to the present moment. 2b.)It is impossible that an actually infinite number of events occur prior to the present moment. So...Therefore, the universe had a beginning. 3.) The universe has a cause (that cause was God).

5 elements of religion

1.) predicament= Humans find themselves in difficult situations (e.g., sin, mortality, samsara [cycle of death and rebirth]) 2.) Need for Resolution= Salvation, liberation, freedom 3.) Ultimate reality= An Ultimate Reality exists that assists us or is the goal of our existence God, Brahman, Nirvana 4.) Something can be known= This "Something" can be known or approached in a specific way, like Holy scripture, shamans, earth-connected 5.) We must do something (or have something done for us) to achieve salvation or liberation= Have faith, deny self, engage in meditation, follow the Five Pillars (of Islam)

St. Irenaeus' theodicy (120-202 AD)

1.)Views Adam not as a free agent rebelling against God, butmore like a very small child needing to grow morally/spiritually (ultimately, into the "likeness" of Christ by the work of the Spirit) 2.)To achieve moral perfection (excellence, maturity), humans must be given free choice . . . and the possibility of choosing to do evil 3.) For humans to have free will, God must be at an epistemicdistance (or intellectual distance) from human—far enough belief in God remains a free choice. 4.) God's purpose for the world? Developmental and teleological moral character of humans: a good world would be best suited to that purpose. 5.) This world would include some suffering and evil to help people draw closer to God. 6.) God's declaration in Genesis that creation was "good" = fit for purpose, rather than being free from suffering.

Omnitemporality

A both/and proposed solution Atemporalists are correct - in saying that God created time and transcends it Sempiternalists' are correct - in claiming that God "dwells in time" "God exists at every time that ever exists" (Craig, 2001, 15 With the creation of the universe, time began, and God entered into time at the moment of creation in virtue of his real relations with the created order. It follows that God must therefore be timeless without the universe and temporal with the universe

The Soul View

A person at a certain time is the numerically identical person at a later time just in case he is (or has) the same soul at both times. The inner life of the personal self . . . the "heart" - the essential life (Jewett, 1996, 39-40) Persons are "embodied souls" Persons have bodies only contingently, not necessarily, and thus can live after bodily death

Qualia

All of our perceptual experiences are constantly laden with qualia (certain phenomenal qualities), including colors, tastes, smells, sounds, thoughts, pain, and feelings. Likely a physicalist view of human nature cannot account for these. For instance, no description of the brain could possibly capture this aspect of perceptual experience.

Dualism (idealistic monism)

Argues for the distinction of mind and matter Denies mind is the same as the brain Some deny mind is wholly a product of the brain Strong form: Body as prison/container of the mind/soul (Plato). Mind/soul is the "real person" Moderate form: Mind is a thinking substance, body is not but has value/function of serving the mind (Descartes) Weak form: Mind & body interdependent/inseparable Utilizing Leibniz'sLaw of Identity Two things are identical if, and only if, they simultaneously share exactly the same qualities. Attributes of mind exist that are lacked by matter

Kalam Key Attributes of God

Beginning-less Uncaused Timeless Spaceless Changeless Immaterial Enormously Powerful Personal

argument against type identity thesis

By the very fact that we think, and speak, differently about our minds and bodies, proves that the mind and body are distinct entities (in some way). If mind and body are identical (P), then it follows that to say "I am religious" also means that "my body is religious" (Q) It is absurd to say that "I am religious" means that "my body is religious" (-Q) Therefore, it cannot be the case that my mind and body are identical (-P)

Criticism against omnitemporality from Sempiternalists

Critics say this view seems to imply that God "changes" due to there being "two phases" in the divine life However, this does not need to be a problem since the change in God does not necessarily involve core attributes or moral changes

Ontological moral argument for existence of God

Deductive #1 1.) There are objective moral obligations. 2.) If there are objective moral obligations, there is a God who explains these obligations. 3.) There is a God. Deductive #2 1.) If God did not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist. 2.) Objective moral values and duties do exist. 3.) Therefore, God exists.

Process view (radical incompatibilism)

God does not have the capacity to know the future since the future has not yet occurred God necessarily has a temporal relationship with humanity Thus, God cannot know what a creature with libertarian freedom [the power of contrary choice] will do tomorrow • Still, God can make reasonable predictions and generally be right about them

Sempiternalism

God must be in time and experience "real time" to be truly personal A timeless being cannot literally respond to historical events or answer prayers Many Scripture passages indicate God being genuinely responsive to human choices & situations in time (e.g., in the Exodus, Jesus' life and actions, the Spirit's activities in Acts) God even "relents" from certain plans (Jer. 18:7-8)

Atemporality

God transcends time If God has always existed, then how could God be limited by time? Time is relative - and even relative to such things as velocity and mass Thus, time cannot be absolute and co-eternal with God God created the space-time continuum, which entails time having a beginning (1 Cor. 2:7, Titus 1:2) God, as beginningless Being, preexisted time and therefore transcends it

The Ockhamist Solution (incompatibilism libertarian)

God's beliefs about the future are caused by the events of the future, not vice versa. God sees what happens in the future, including the free actions of human beings, and thus acquires true beliefs about those actions and events. God's actually knowing the future of human free will actions does not cause those same actions

Constitutionism

Holds to the necessary 'oneness' between material and immaterial in the person in terms of 'indivisibility' - constituting the 'whole' person. (Similar to Property Dualism)

Horrendous Evils & the Goodness of God • Presented by Marilyn Adams

Horrors in our lives (intuitively regarded as life-wrecking) These are (or can be) defeated by a kind of relational intimacy with God This is made possible by the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and God's ultimate/eternal goals Because God (in Christ) participated in horrendous evil — through his passion (suffering) and death —human experience of horrors can be: • A means of identifying w/Christ (in some way) • Understood as being given a life that is a "great good" to her/him on the whole . . . understood in eternity as such, even if not now.

Free Will Compatibilism

Human freedom (free will) and moral responsibility are consistent with determinism (God's sovereignty) Freedom does not require the power of contrary choice; we do what we really want to do Every person chooses according to his or her greatest desire . . . what one wants What one wants is determined by (and consistent with) one's moral nature. God powerfully influences our desires and is able to have exhaustive control of all that goes on ➢ Even to the point of determining a person's regeneration/salvation (throughgrace). "Irresistible Grace" of Calvinism's TULIP model

Free Will Incompatibilism

Human freedom (free will) and moral responsibility are incompatible with theological determinism (God's absolute/totalizing sovereignty) God does not have [absolute] foreknowledge of all future human actions God does know future events that are the direct result of physical determinism (Schools of Thought: Arminianism, Open Theism, Process Philosophy / Theology, and Relational Libertarian Solutions • Some advocates: Pinnock, Hasker, Rice, Sanders, Boyd, Cobb, Oord • Some books: The Openness of God, The God Who Risks, God of the Possible)

Property Dualism (or Non-Reductive Physicalism)

Humans are constituted of just the physical,but there exist two distinct kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properties. In other words, it is the view that non-physical, mental properties (such as beliefs, desires and emotions) inhere in some physical substances (namely brains) • The mind is a causally emergent feature of the brain • Consciousness is irreducible (to the physical)• Subjectivity is irreducible (to the physical) • The mind is generated by the brain, but possesses qualitative difference from the neurological properties from which it arises (emergent dualism, W. Hasker)

John Paul II (modified Aquinas view): "Imago Dei"

Humans are substantial beings-in-the-world Created as dynamic and self-realizing creature . . .through their acts Created by God "the image of God": love, rational, volitional, and creative The soul is "in the form of the body" (united in form and matter), and a substance as well Thus, destruction of body ≠ destruction of soul Soul is immortal by its "created nature"

Reason

If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true • Therefore, I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms [Virtually] all possible knowledge depends on the validity of reasoning. •Our sense of certainty assumes, then, we are connecting with genuine insights into reality. • But if such certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds instead, then we can have no knowledge. •If all our thoughts are the effect of a physical cause [materialism], then we have no reason for assuming they are also the consequent of areasonable ground. •However, knowledge is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. •Unless human reasoning is valid, no science can be true. • Therefore, if naturalism [materialism] were true, there would be no way of knowing it (or anything else), except by a fluke [luck].

Existential/Practical Argument: What Difference Does It Make If God Exists?

If there is no God, then there is no purpose to life, all is good or bad luck, and there is no reason to hope that anything we believe or do will make any difference in the long run. If God exists and is at work in the world— with a mission/purpose—what we believe and do makes a significant difference. As we have seen, there are good reasons —including arguments— for believing God exists, and thus good reason to have hope: even in the midst of difficult circumstances.

1. The Memory View

John Locke - first to propose this view (17th century) Personal identity is a matter of psychological continuity A person at a certain time is the numerically identical person at a later time just in case he has memories of that earlier time. Well suited for thought experiments conducted from first-person points of view

Funcitonalism (materialism)

Mental states are reducible to the functional operations of the brain and the causal roles these play in the larger human system The mind is essentially a "computer program Such as their relations to the body's behavior and environment "What does it [the brain] do?" is the concern

Identify what two major areas are addressed by the branch of philosophy known as Metaphysics

Mind & Body, Dualism and Phyiscalism (or materialism)

paralellism

Minds and bodies do not really interact, but only seem to. Mental event occur in one realm, and physical events happen in another realm. The two never connect in reality.

The Problem of Evil & the Desires o/t Heart • Presented by Eleonore Stump

Much suffering comes from unfulfilled "desires of the heart" Theodicies are deficient when they do not consider these desires of the heart ▪E.g., focused only on some general "global good" for humanity as a morally sufficient justification for God allowing suffering (e.g., the significance of free will) Thus, theodicies ought to confer sufficient value to this sort of suffering

Omni-attributes of God

Omnibenevolent, Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence

The Physical View

Personal identity depends on maintainingrelevant physical characteristics. 3 Criteria The Body Criterion The Brain Criterion The Causal Continuity Criterion The Body Criterion: Maintaining certain relevant physical characteristics A person at a certain time is the numerically identical person at a later time just in case he is the same bodyat both times "We are our bodies" Brain Criterion: A person at a certain time is the numerically identical person at a later time just in case he is the same brain at both times The Causal Continuity Criterion: • A body (or brain) is the same body (or brain) from one time to a later time just in case the parts that compose the body at the later time are causally continuous with those parts that composed the body at the earlier time

Natural Evil

Physical pain and suffering, resulting from either impersonal forces or human actions ➢Pain and deathcaused by floods, famines, earthquakes, disease, deformities, insanity, etc.

Soul-Making Theodicy (a type of FWD)

Presented by philosophical theologian John Hick (based on Irenaeus' theodicy) 1. The Fall is humanity's first faulty step in the direction of freedom 2. God is still working in humanity to bring it from undeveloped biological life (bios) to a state of self-realization in divine love, spiritual life (zoe) • Zoe is a personal life of eternal worth, as seen in Christ. 3. This life we experience now is seen as the "vale of soul-making"— purposed by God for the ultimate future of full glory and permanence 4. Spiritual development requires obstacles and the opportunity to fail as well as to succeed. 5. Those who oppose this challenge of freedom: looking for some hedonistic paradise of self-gratification and where people are treated by God as "pet animals" rather than autonomous,moral/spiritual agents. 6. Those who accept this challenge of freedom: consider themselves co-workers with God in bringing forth the kingdom of God (God'sreign/rule) by spiritual/moral development

problems with the soul view of personal identity

Problems: Transitivity Problems The Circularity Problem

Arguments for Interactionism

Richard Swinburne: "Dualistic Interactionism" Humans consist of two substances (body and soul) These causally interact with each other (regardless the mechanism involved) The extremely complex soul (human and animal) is created and infused by God The soul's existence does not depend on the body, but the soul's functioning does The soul is not naturally immortal (against Augustine, Descartes) However, God can keep the soul in existence and functioning at death

Anselm's 1st Ontological Argument

THE ontological argument - God is the greatest being imagined - God exists in the mind - If he exists in the mind and in reality he is the greatest

Type Identity Thesis/Theory (materialism)

Terms such as "mind" and "soul" and "body" refer to the same identical material entity. ØWhatever is said about the mind (or soul or spirit or self) is actually about the body (brain and/or nervous system). This is because the body is matter, and matter is the only reality.

Arguments for Incompatibilism

The Consequence Argument 1. If determinism is true, then our actions are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. 2. It is not in our power to change the laws of nature.3. It is not in our power to change events in the remote past. ➢Arguments for Incompatibilism (cont.)▪The Consequence Argument (cont.) If our actions are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past, and it is not in our power to change these things, then we cannot do otherwise than what we do. If we cannot do otherwise than what we do, then we are not free. Therefore, if determinism is true, then we are not free. ➢Arguments for Incompatibilism (cont.)▪ The Origination Argument 1. An agent acts with free will only if she is the originator (or ultimate source) of her actions. If determinism is true, then everything any agent does is ultimately caused by events and circumstances outside her control. If everything an agent does is ultimately caused by events and circumstances beyond her control, then the agent is not the originator (or ultimate source) of her actions. ➢Arguments for Incompatibilism (cont.)▪ The Origination Argument (cont.) 4. Therefore, if determinism is true, then no agent is the originator (or ultimate source) of her actions. 5. Therefore, if determinism is true, no agent has free will.

Logical Problem of Evil

The Logical Problem of Evil (formal logical argument) (1) If God exists, then he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. (2) An omnipotent being has the power to prevent evil. (3) An omniscient being has the knowledge to prevent evil. (4) An omnibenevolent being has the desire to prevent evil. (5) Therefore, if God exists, there is no evil. (6) Evil exists. (7) Therefore, God does not exist.

Argument for substance dualism

The Modal Argument (A. Plantinga's use of G. Leibniz) Law of Identity is involved Thought experiment: • (I can imagine) "B" is my body, and "A" is me "A" is not the same as "B" Therefore, "I" am not equal to "my body"

Argument against sempiternalism

The biblical language is a kind of "accommodation" to human finitude God "appears" to respond to historical events, even changes plans for acting in the world But these things are not literally true of God, but rather necessary means of communicating to temporal beings.

Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument

The concept of a maximally great being is consistent and hence possibly instantiated, it follows that such a being, God, exists in every possible world. 1.) The concept of a maximally great being is self-consistent. 2.) If 1, then there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists. 3.) Therefore, there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists. 4.) If a maximally great being exists in one logically possible world, it exists in every logically possible world. 5.) Therefore, a maximally great being (that is, God) exists in every logically possible world.

physical/material monism

The mind (or soul) does not exist, or is understood as physical as are all things, or can be reduced to the physical There is only a brain and central nervous system Monism = one "thing" or "substance"

idealism monism

The mind (or soul) is immaterial, as are all other things, or all is mediated by the mind

Substance Dualism (aka Cartesian Dualism)

There is a mind (or soul) separate from the body. These are separate substances. A human being has a physical component (body) and nonphysical component (called a soul, mind, or self)** "Substance" (has causative power) and "Property" (does not cause bodily activity) are different types of dualism

theistic response to logical problem of evil

There is no explicit evidence to prove that God and evil cannot coexist, and the only way this argument can go through is with implicit evidence, which does not make it stand for much.

Intentionality

This involves one's mental state about something (e.g., thinking about your mom, dad, a friend, or even something imaginary). It refers to someone/something outside themselves (our mental states), transcending our own minds. "aboutness." Mental states carry semantic content and meaning, while physical objects (brains) do not. Mental states point beyond themselves to other things. This is an intrinsic, irreducible feature of mental states. E.g., the reality that Allison's thought that the music is beautiful is about the music cannot be reduced to any physical fact about Allison's brain and central nervous system or her disposition.

Inscrutable Evil and an Infinite God • Presented by James Petrik (read textbook section)

We have good reason to believe that there aremany reasons for God's actions that we simply cannot grasp. Some of God's reasons are beyond our cognitive powers. This calls for the modal modesty approach

Augustinian Theodicy

What is the nature of evil? Deviation or privation or absence of goodness. Thus, evil cannot be a separate and unique substance. Thus, the problem of evil and suffering is void because God did not create evil Human beings chose/choose to deviate from the path of perfect goodness (humanity fell into sin through the misuse of free will) God's goodness and benevolence remain perfect . . . since God is not responsible for evil or suffering

Divine Emotion

Whether God has emotions and whether God can be affected by some outside force 1) Impassibilism - God does not experience emotion and cannot be affected by some outside force. Because of changeless divine eternality, emotions are impossible for God, for emotions imply change. Because of divine omniscience, God cannot feel surprise, wonder, disappointment. If God feels sadness or disgust or anger, then he is not perfectly happy. (Arguments for: Appeals to divine perfection, divine immutability, and certain scriptures (Mal. 3:6, Isa. 46:10, James 1:17, etc.) Major Advocates: Plotinus/Aquinas Problem: Seems to undermine divine personhood and relationality) 2.) Passibilism - God experiences emotion in a temporal way and can be affected by some outside force. Emotion: essential to divine personhood (just as to human personhood) Love and moral goodness presuppose possibility Divine omniscience entails experiential knowledge: joy, sympathy, pain, suffering ("God's love for his world is a rejoicing and suffering love," Wolterstorff, 1988, 227). (Arguments for: Appeals to divine personhood, divine omniscience, and certain Scriptures (e.g., Exod. 4:14; Prov. 11:2, Malachi 1:2) The Incarnation: experience of joy, pain, & suffering in Christ (for others) Major Advocates: Moltmann/Taliaferro Problem: Seems to contradict divine immutability and eternal happiness) 3) Omnipathism - God eternally experiences all emotion (all at once). God's knowledge and emotions are constant, and unchanging (not necessarily equally experienced) God must have emotions to account for genuine personhood yet God's unchanging character, eternality, & happiness must obtain Therefore, God really feels sorrow, joy, anger, humor, grief, love➢ These divine feelings are constant and unchanging: all at once/eternal ➢ God is never dominated by any emotions but remains eternally joyful

Moral Evil

Wrongful and hurtful acts • Bad character traits of human beings ➢Murder, dishonesty, greed, cowardice, abusiveness, etc.

Occasionalism

•Body and soul are causally independent. Mental operations are the activity of the soul alone (although they are typically associated with brain and other activities of the body) This appearance is due to God coordinating mental and physical events in the following way: The body (brain) activities occur on the "occasion" of certain mental states (such as thought or choices) Mental states (such as sensations) occur on the "occasion" of certain bodily states (such as eye or hand movement) Only God is the true cause, who has the power to move bodies and minds, as author of all beings Strong divine sovereignty view and some idealism form (mind- dependent reality) Christian and Islamic and Cartesian occasionalism forms exist

Subjectivity

•Human beings and animals have subjective experiences First-person, private access to one's own mental/psychological life (not available to anyone else), whereas physical properties (e.g., brain) are public and available to others (a neurosurgeon, for instance) Directly present to the subject and immediately in one's field of consciousness No physiological description of one's inner life can capture what that is like Subjectivity eludes even rigorous brain process descriptions, which are third-person in nature and cannot provide first-person knowledge

Openness view (non-radical incompatibilism)

▪ God does have the capacity to know the future since God possessed divine foreknowledge However, God sovereignly chooses not to know some things about the future • For the sake of human freedom, and relationship with human persons

Libertarian Incompatibilism

▪Holds that free will exists, but determinism does not exist▪Human beings have the power of contrary choice, and thus we must be able to avoid doing what we do. ▪So, for the libertarian, the fact that "she freely did this act" shows that determinism is false.

➢Hard determinism Incompatibilism

▪Holds that free will is an illusion, and thus does not exist▪All of one's actions are caused by factors outside of his/her control.▪There is nothing free about anything one does.

Compatibilism (Soft Determinism) (C or SD)

➢Free will and determinism can both be true, which is not logically inconsistent. ➢Classical View: free will is nothing more than freedom of action ➢Contemporary View: freedom of will: a psychological capacity (e.g., directing one's behavior in a way responsive to reason) ➢Some human actions are free (for instance, to will what we desire), even though human actions are fully causally determined. ➢Determinism says that at any given moment, there is only one physically possible future.

Free will is tied to moral responsibility.

➢Moral responsibility is enormously important to human life. It is virtually impossible to imagine that moral responsibility is an illusion. Most people find implausible the very suggestion that there is no moral responsibility. ▪Consequently, whatever assigns moral responsibility to a moral agent seems very important! ▪What/Who is it that assigns moral responsibility?

Hard Determinism (HD)

➢No random, spontaneous, mysterious, or miraculous events occur. ➢Denies the existence of free will (an illusion) ➢All human actions are fully causally determined, and therefore, no human actions are free.

Libertarianism

➢The freedom necessary for responsible action is not compatible with determinism. ➢Real freedom requires a type of control over one's action and will ➢Freedom of choice Some human actions are free and therefore are not fully causally determined. ➢Agent Causation▪The agent can start new causal chains not determined by prior events ▪The agent must exercise her causal powers and to do one alternative, as the originator of her own actions. ▪Since freedom is a choice that an agent can bring about himself, there are multiple possible futures. ➢Libertarianism embraces indeterminism (the view that there is more than one physically possible future).

Modal Modesty

➢There must be values recognized by God of which human beings have no understanding Modal Modesty (cont.) ➢A modal claim is a claim about whether something is possible or impossible, necessary or contingent. ➢Logical consistency is a good thing and ought to be pursued, but absolute certainty about one's process and thinking is something different, and calls for humility ➢Our acting according to the modal rules God has revealed to us may be part of God's plan for promoting some more comprehensive set of values we only partial grasp . . . since God is working in far greater ways than we can imagine/think!