philosophy 120 midterm review
According to Creel, why are some people not satisfied with the conclusively justified true belief theory of knowledge?
a person can know that something is the case without personally having a proof of it or even a justification for it and the CJTB theory says that can't happen
(a) According to Goldman's causal theory of knowledge, what is knowledge?
a person knows that p iff p is true and what makes p true is causally connected in the appropriate way to the person's belief that p
Someone might get the wrong idea about the principle the objector to the Epicurean argument from evil is using in criticizing that argument in the way we did in class. What principle is the objector to the Epicurean argument from evil NOT using?
that it is okay to do evil E, e.g., torture someone, in order to bring about some greater good, e.g., save the lives of millions of people or avoid some greater evil, e.g., the death of millions of people
(c) Explain why the Gettier counter-examples do not falsify the conclusively justified true belief account of knowledge.
the CJTB theory gives the intuition that the protagonist does not know what they believe in the gettier cases
What is the really, really, smart people living in the 13th century counter-example and how does it show that knowledge is not justified belief?
the people who believed that the earth revolves around the sun were just lucky, they did not know it. their belief was justified but they did not have enough evidence to truly know that they were right.
What is proposition R?
the real, i.e., a transcendent reality, exists (and it is worship-worthy, i.e., it is appropriate to take up a stance of reverence towards the real)
Describe the philosophical method known as offering a counter-example to a thesis or hypothesis.
to show a hypothesis is false, provide an example where S believes that p and has evidence that p, but S clearly does not know that p
What does it means to speak of 'gods'?
to speak of gods is only of a higher or more powerful or more splendid dimension of immanent reality
What lesson did the professor draw from the investigation of these moral arguments?
we are all exclusivists in condition C about something, so it must not be so bad to be in condition C in respect to propositions. we all believe propositions that not everyone believes and some of the people who do not believe them are very smart and we cannot prove our position, and there is nothing wrong with that. you cannot get away from it.
What are two problems with this argument according to Alvin Plantinga?
(1) ---> (8) if a person is in condition C with respect to proposition P, then S shouldn't believe P // (9*) enlightened skeptics are in condition C with respect to skepticism // (10*) therefore, enlightened skeptics should not believe skepticism (2) ---> (9**) enlightened skeptics are in condition C with respect to proposition (8) // (10**) therefore, enlightened skeptics should not believe proposition (8)
How has Alvin Plantinga—a defender of doctrinal exclusivism—responded to that moral objection?
(1) A person S is being intellectually arrogant if (a) S believes P and (b) S is in position C with respect to P // (5) There are Pluralists who believe Pluralism (Pl)—none of the unique claims of the world's great religions are literally true—and are in position C with respect to Pl. Call these folk Enlightened Pluralists. // (6) Therefore, the enlightened Pluralist is intellectually arrogant // (7) Therefore, the Pluralist is either intellectually arrogant or unenlightened
What is the moral objection that John Hick (a religious pluralist) raises for doctrinal exclusivism?
(1) A person S is being intellectually arrogant if (a) S believes P and (b) S is in position C with respect to P // (2) there are DEs who are in condition C with respect to the religion they think is the OTR (call these DEs enlightened DEs) // (3) therefore, enlightened DEs are intellectually arrogant // (4) therefore, a DE is intellectually arrogant or unenlightened
What are the two meanings of justification in contemporary philosophy?
(1) a person is justified in believing that p (e.g. 'God exists' iff john has STRONG EVIDENCE for p // (2) a person is justified in believing that p iff a person has evidence that p such that they are REASONABLE in believing that p
What are the three counter-examples for the Epicurean argument from evil?
(1) could a morally good mother say 'no' to her child's request, even though in saying 'no' she would be allowing an evil she could have prevented? yes // (2) could a morally good doctor consent to treat a cancer patient, with all the pain and suffering that necessarily goes along with such treatments, even though she could have prevented these evils? yes // (3) could a morally good mother allow her child to make a choice C, where it is really possible that her child make an evil choice? yes
(b) What are two ways that knowledge by divine faith differs from those forms of knowledge other than faith according to St. Thomas that we emphasized in class?
(1) divine faith: a person can freely choose not to believe p if they come to believe that p // knowledge other than faith: a person cannot freely choose not to believe p if they come to believe that p // (2) a person's firm assent that p is primarily based on -> divine faith: reasonable belief that God has non-faith knowledge that p // knowledge other than faith: own awareness or understanding of the truth of p
In class we distinguished three different senses of faith. List and explain.
(1) faith in (someone's character, very similar to truth) // (2) faith that something exists (like faith that God exists) // (3) faith that what someone says is true (that someone is telling the truth about where they're from, for example)
(d) What are three ways that forms of knowledge other than faith differ from human faith according to St. Thomas that we emphasized in class?
(1) human faith: a person can freely choose not to believe p if they come to believe that p // knowledge other than faith: a person cannot freely choose not to believe p if they come to believe that p // (2) a person's firm assent that p is primarily based on -> human faith: belief that some other human person has non-faith knowledge that p // knowledge other than faith: own awareness or understanding of the truth of p // (3) is a form of knowledge when -> human faith: p is true and certain other conditions are met // knowledge other than faith: always
Be prepared to complete an unfinished formulation of the Epicurean logical argument from evil for the non-existence of God.
(1) if God exists, then there is a being that is omnipotent and good // (2) an omnipotent being could prevent any evil that it wills to prevent // (3) a good being would prevent any evil in its power to prevent // (4) therefore, if there is an omnipotent and good being, i.e., a being that both (a) would prevent any evil in its power to prevent, and (b) could prevent any evil, then there is no evil in the world // (5) there is evil in the world // (6) therefore, it is not the case that there is an omnipotent and good being // (7) therefore, God does not exist
In discussing OTR the professor distinguished two different meanings of the word tolerance. Explain.
(1) indifference (2) accept someone is wrong, but let them live their lives
(a) According to the conclusive justification theory of knowledge, what four things have to be true if Joe knows that p is true?
(1) joe believes that p (2) p is true (3) joe possesses a certain kind of strong evidence E that p (4) joe understands how E provides conclusive justification that p
What is the Judah counter-example and how does it show that knowledge is not true belief?
(1) judah watched the cardinals game until the bottom of the 8th inning when they were winning 9-2. he wakes up the next morning knowing that the cardinals won. (2) knowledge is not true belief because although judah truly believes that the cardinals won the game, it does not mean that he knows that the cardinals won the game
What are the two general ways of thinking about the nature of knowledge that after Gettier?
(1) justification approach -> conclusively justified true belief (2) causal or externalist theories of knowledge
List and explain the two different traditions/approaches toward thinking about knowledge that that the professor mentioned in class.
(1) knowledge is a problem - Plato // (2) knowledge is a given - Aristotle
In class the professor mentioned four things that are not entailed simply by believing that some great religion of the world is the one, true religion. Explain.
(1) people who don't believe in OTR know nothing about the real (they do) (2) people outside of the OTR haven't received revelations from God (3) in order to go to heaven or receive ultimate happiness, you have to exclusively believe in the OTR before you die (4) just because you believe in OTR, you should be intolerant of those who do not believe in OTR
What is pragmatic pluralism?
(1) perhaps we do run into (irreconcilable) problems in talking about the Real and the great religions of the world when we talk about those religions at the level of abstraction and theory. But the heart of a religion is its practice in worship and prayer // (2) in the practices of worship and prayer we see great overlap and confluence among the great world religions // (3) therefore, there is one divine reality, i.e., the Real, behind these offerings of prayer from diverse religious traditions and therefore what divides us—our creeds—actually represents something secondary, human, and historical // theoretical truths don't really matter; focuses on politics and ethics
Define religious skepticism, religious pluralism, salvific doctrinal exclusivism and non-salvific doctrinal exclusivism (or inclusivism) by making reference to propositions R, DE, and S.
(1) religious skeptics don't believe R, DE, or S (2) pluralists don't believe DE or S (3) non-salvifics or inclusivists believe R and DE but not S (4) salvific doctrinal exclusivists believe R, DE, and S
What is the John's on trial for murder counter-example and how does it show that knowledge is not belief based on evidence?
(1) sally thinks john is guilty of a crime because she has evidence for such a belief, but john is not guilty of the crime // whatever else knowing p is, it entails believing truly that p // so, sally does not know that john is guilty, despite the fact that she believes that he is and that she has some evidence for her belief // (2) if knowledge is belief based on evidence, sally would know that p in any case where she believed that p and had some evidence that p
List, explain, and give examples of the six sources of truth that Creel mentions.
(1) sensation: using the senses to find out truth // (2) introspection: thinking about what is going on with yourself // (3) reason: applying a proven concept universally like geometric rules // (4) intuition: truth through unexpected means and not reasoning // (5) dreams: glimpses of your future or sometimes discoveries/ideas // (6) revelation: knowing things revealed by others
(b) Give three different examples of causal connections between a belief that p and the fact that p. Explain how Goldman's theory can make sense of the Mike-Walks-Past-Joe's-Room case.
(1) the sun's shining (what makes the sun's shining true) -> joan's seeing that the sun is shining -> joan's believing that the sun is shining (2) jane's seeing that it's raining in martin -> jane's believing that it's raining in martin -> jane's telling john on the phone that it's raining in martin -> john's believing that it's raining in martin, even though he is not currently in martin (3) (a) Gary's believing the hypotenuse of a right triangle T is 50 meter long (b) Gary's knowing that one side of T-not the hypotenuse-is 40 meters long and another side of T-also not the hypotenuse-is 30 meters long. (c)Gary's knowing that 30 squared is 900 and 40 squared is 1600. (d) Gary's knowing that 900+1600=2500. (e) Gary's knowing the Pythagorean theorem. (f) Gary's knowing that the square root of 2500 is 50.
(c) What are two ways that believing by human faith is similar to those forms of knowledge other than faith according to St. Thomas that we emphasized in class?
(1) they involve the believer's making a firm assent that p is true // (2) they are compatible with having (even lots of) evidence that p
(a) What are four ways that knowledge by divine faith is similar to those forms of knowledge other than faith according to St. Thomas Aquinas that we emphasized in class?
(1) they involve the believer's making a firm assent that p is true // (2) they are compatible with having (even lots of) evidence that p // (3) they are a form of knowledge // (4) they are not compatible with p's being false
List and explain the two species of inclusivism the professor mentioned.
(1) universalist inclusivism -> everyone has the potential to be saved without professing their faith; eventually everyone will go to heaven (2) non-universalist inclusivism -> those who seek, find (if only in the next life); not everyone will go to heaven
(a) What is the general schema for believing what someone says is true by faith the professor talked about in class?
(1)Person R reasonably believes that person S says p is true, where R and S are not the same person (2)Person R believes person S is a reliable authority where the truth or falsity of propositions such as p is concerned (3)Primarily in light of (1) and (2), person R believes what S says is true
(b) What is the schema for believing what someone says is true by human faith the professor talked about in class?
(1*) John reasonably believes that a human person Jasmine reveals 'I went to school in Dresden.' (2*) John believes by faith that Jasmine, a human person, is a reliable authority about where Jasmine went to school. (3*) Primarily in light of (1*) and (2*), John believes by faith that Jasmine went to school in Dresden.
(c) What is the schema for believing what God says is true by divine faith the professor mentioned in class?
(1**) Dante reasonably believes by faith that God has revealed that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (2**) Dante reasonably believes if God exists, then God is a perfectly reliable authority; for by definition God can't deceive or be deceived, since by definition, if there is a God, God is omnibenevolent and omniscient. (3**) Primarily in light of (1**) and (2**), Dante reasonably believes by faith that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Be able to recognize Hick's first philosophico-theological defense of the pluralistic hypothesis.
(1a) There is a God who wants human persons to know God, and God is infinite and therefore cannot be defined or encompassed by human thought // (1b) If there is a God who wants human persons to know God, and God is infinite and therefore cannot be defined or encompassed by human thought, then the different world religions constitute different authentic encounters with the true God // (2) The different world religions constitute different authentic encounters with the true God // (3) Doctrinal Exclusivist views are incompatible with (2) // (4) Skepticism does not accept (1a) // (4) Pluralism is compatible with (1a), (1b), and (2) // (5) Therefore, all other things being equal, pluralism rather than doctrinal exclusivist views or skepticism is a better way to make sense of the phenomenon of the religious diversity
Whichever way we read premises (1b) and (2) of the argument, the argument has a problem. Explain.
(2*) the different world religions constitute different authentic encounters with the true God, where one of these encounters is better than the others -> DE views are incompatible with this statement; pluralism is compatible with "the different world religions constitute different authentic encounters with the true God"; therefore, all other things being equal, pluralism rather than DE is a better way to make sense of the phenomenon of the religious diversity // (2**) the different world religions constitute different authentic encounters with the true God, where none of these is better than the others -> DE views are incompatible with "the different world religions constitute different authentic encounters with the true God"; pluralism is compatible with that statement; therefore, all other things being equal, pluralism rather than DE is a better way to make sense of religious diversity
Premises (1b) and (2) in the first philosophico-theological argument are ambiguous. Explain the two different ways of reading these premises we talked about in class.
(2*) the different world religions constitute different encounters with the true God, where one of these encounters is better than the others (2**) the different world religions constitute different authentic encounters with the true God, where none of these is better than the other.
What is the moral argument offered by the skeptic we talked about in class?
(8) if a person is in condition C with respect to proposition P, then S shouldn't believe P // (9) enlightened DE are in condition C with respect to DE and the Hickean Pluralist is in condition C with respect to HP // (10) therefore, enlightened DE should not believe DE and the Hickean Pluralist shouldn't believe HP // (11) therefore, skepticism
How did the professor formulate the so-called problem of religious diversity?
(a) although some of the great religions of the world are similar in significant ways, it is also the case that the great religions of the world differ in radical ways from one another // (b) for any great religion of the world r, it's not hard to find intellectually and morally serious people who believe in and practice r // (c) for any great religion of the world r, there are no proofs of the truth of r
(a) Creel offers an argument for thinking that knowledge is not the same thing as hope. What is the argument? (b) The arguments rely on two different common beliefs about the nature of knowledge. What are these two common beliefs about knowledge?
(a) hope means that you want something to be true rather than actually being certain it is, and what we hope is true might be false whereas what we know cannot be false // (b) (1) knowledge must be true and (2) we can think that we know something without actually knowing it
(a) List and be able to recognize examples of the three different senses of 'knowledge' that philosophers distinguish. (b) In which of these three senses of 'knowledge' have philosophers been particularly interested?
(a) knowledge by acquaintance (knowing someone or of someone), knowledge how (to do something, etc.), and knowledge that (something is true, etc.) // (b) knowledge that
(a) How does Creel suggest faith and knowledge are similar? (b) How are they different?
(a) they are most based on the notion that something is true // (b) having faith in something does not mean it is automatically true like knowledge, you can be wrong in your faith; faith isn't primarily based on reason and evidence
How do philosophers typically define belief?
something that is based on truth and depends on minds for its existence
(d) Name a seventeenth century philosopher who holds something like the CJTB theory of knowledge.
Descartes
According to a wide variety of religious traditions, when one uses the word 'God' properly, what does one say about God?
One says that God is eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and absolutely immanent to all things
what is it for a person to be in condition C with respect to proposition P?
S doesn't know of any argument that would necessarily convince all or most honest and intelligent dissenters that they should accept P
What is proposition S?
Salvation (or perfect liberation, or the gaining or ultimate happiness) is available only to those persons who explicitly affirm in this life the (key or important) doctrines of the OTR
(a) Given the definitions of philosophy and revealed theology we spoke about in class, list the ways in which philosophy and revealed theology are similar. (b) How do they differ?
Similarities: rational and disciplined pursuit of knowledge of the ultimately real, the good, and the beautiful by means of argumentation and data given from the experimental sciences // Differences: philosophy - by means of conceptual analysis, and reflection upon one's own experiences, the reported experiences of others // revealed theology - by means of receiving the content of divine revelation by faith, in concert with natural human reason and its fruit, the interpretation of which revelation is aided by reflection upon the work of theologians in the past and the work of philosophy
(a) Given the definitions of philosophy and experimental science we spoke about in class, list the ways in which philosophy and experimental science are similar. (b) How do they differ?
Similarities: the rational and disiciplined pursuit and presentation of knowledge by means of argumentation and natural reason alone // Differences: philosophy - knowledge of the ultimately real, the good, and the beautiful by conceptual analysis and reflection upon one's own experiences, the reported experiences of others, conversation, and data given by experimental sciences // experimental sciences - knowledge of physical reality insofar as it can be quantitatively measured, by way of modern technologies, controlled experiments, within a theoretical framework
How does Creel define epistemology?
an area of philosophy that investigates the sources and nature of knowledge as well as methods for achieving it and evaluating knowledge claims
A non-Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God? Be ready to recognize an example of such an argument.
argument with no premises that say the physical universe had a beginning in time
What is a Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God? Be ready to recognize an example of such an argument.
argument with the premise that says the universe had a beginning in time
What is a design argument for the existence of God? Be ready to recognize an example of such an argument.
arguments for the existence of God from the perceived order, complexity, or purpose in nature
What is a cosmological argument for the existence of God? Be ready to recognize an example of a cosmological argument for the existence of God.
arguments for the existence of God that begin from observation or experience that there is something that exists contingently, i.e., it need not exist or it depends on something else for its existence or it has a cause of its existence
What is an ontological argument for the existence of God? Be ready to recognize an example of such an argument.
arguments for the existence of God that deploy chiefly from ideas (especially from a definition/description of God)
What is an axiological argument for the existence of God? Be ready to recognize an example of such an argument.
arguments that deploy from our experience of beauty, truth, goodness, happiness, and pleasure // e.g. St. Augustine's argument from desire, i.e., an argument from our desire for perfect goodness for the existence of God
What is a moral argument for the existence of God? Be ready to recognize an example of such an argument.
arguments that deploy from our sense of moral duty or obligation
According to Hart, how does one go about "investigating" the existence and nature of God?
by acts of logical deduction and conjecture or by contemplative or spiritual experiences
In presenting an objection to the Epicurean argument from evil, the professor distinguished two kinds of evil. What two?
doing evil and suffering evil
What is the significant difference between the Epicurean argument from evil and the argument from evil that contains premise (5*) that the professor emphasized in class?
epicurean argument: premise 3 is false, but that means that premise 4 and 5 both have to be changed on the argument from evil that contains premise (5*) // so, the main difference is that the epicurean argument states that 'there is evil in the world' (we know this is true and almost all people agree on it) but premise (5*) says 'there is evil in the world that an omnipotent and good being does not have a morally sufficient reason for permitting' (we do not know this argument is true and not all people would agree on it)
In class, the professor spoke of global pluralism/skepticism and local pluralism/skepticism. Explain the difference between these and provide some concrete examples to show that you understand the difference between global and local pluralism/skepticism.
global skeptics don't believe in R, global pluralists believe that there is no OTR. local pluralists believe that there an OTR but not OTT. local skeptics believe in R, but no true tradition.
(d) Explain why this case is NOT a counter-example for Goldman's theory of knowledge, but (assuming John knows it's raining in Martin) it is a counter-example for the CJTB theory of knowledge.
he got to it in an appropriate way; it doesn't support CJTB because he is not conclusively justified in his belief he is relying on revelation and another person's authority
(d) What is an important difference between human faith that what someone says is true and divine faith that what God says is true?
human faith can be false but divine faith cannot be false since God is a perfectly reliable authority
Explain the Brain in the Vat Thought Experiment as a way of defending the view that the CJTB theory of knowledge leads to a radical kind of skepticism about knowledge.
if the CJTB theory is correct, then we don't know much of anything. so we could all be a brain in a vat in the thought experiment and wouldn't know it.
How would one go about investigating the existence and nature of fairies and gods?
in local facts, not universal truths of reason; entirely empirical, episodic, psychological, personal, and elusive
Using the different cases mentioned on slide 66 of the knowledge power-point, be able to understand why someone might think Plantinga's warrant and proper function account of knowledge is superior to the JTB theory, the CJTB theory, and Goldman's theory of knowledge.
it accounts for the conditions of mike and joe case, the john and the rain in martin case, the smith blow to the head case, and the trudy/judy case, while all other theories do not satisfy all of these cases
What principle IS the objector to the Epicurean argument from evil using?
it can be morally permissible for person S to allow someone S1 to suffer an evil E in order to (a) bring about a good G in S1 that outweighs E, or (b) avoid an evil E1 for S1 that is greater than E
(b) What does conclusive justification mean? In other words, if Joe has conclusive justification for a belief of his, what can we say about Joe and his belief?
joe is conclusively justified in believing that p if joe has evidence that p such that he is absolutely certain that p, i.e., it's not possible given his evidence for p, that joe is wrong in believing that p
What four things have to be true if Joe is warranted in believing that p is true according to Plantinga's warrant and proper-function causal theory of knowledge?
joe is warranted in believing that p iff (1) joe's belief that p is produced by properly functioning cognitive faculties, i.e., not subject to disease or disfunction (2) where those faculties are operating in an environment or set of circumstances consistent with the design plan of God and/or nature (3) such that the faculties in question are aimed at producing true beliefs (4) successfully
According to Alvin Plantinga's warrant and proper-function causal theory of knowledge, what three things have to be true if Joe knows that p?
joe knows that p iff joe believes that p, p is true, and joe is warranted in believing that p
(c) What is the John and It's Raining in Martin case?
john believes it's raining in martin because jane told him it's raining in martin and jane believes it's raining in martin because she's in martin and saw it raining
(e) How do the Jones-Falls-Down-the-Stairs and the Smith-Falls-Down-the-Stairs cases illustrate the importance of the "appropriate way" clause in Goldman's definition of knowledge?
jones believes he fell down the stairs because he remembers he did a few minutes after it happened which is the appropriate way; smith believes he fell down the stairs but his brain is damaged from the fall and he believes other false things so there is not a way for him to know that he fell even though it is true, he didn't get to the belief in the appropriate way
What is the Trudy/Judy case and how does it seem to function as a counter-example to Goldman's causal theory of knowledge?
judy is trudy's identical twin and trudy is smith's neighbor. smith sees trudy get the mail and waves knowing it was trudy, but he didn't truly know because there was an equal chance that he could have seen judy and been mistaken. this is a counter-example for Goldman's theory because smith didn't know that it was trudy through the appropriate way, it was luck and he had a good change of being wrong.
What is the definition of knowledge that is sometimes called the traditional definition of knowledge?
knowledge is justified true belief
List and state the three laws of thought.
law of identity: "if an assertion is true, then it is true" // law of non-contradiction: "an assertion cannot be both true and false" // law of excluded middle: "an assertion must be true or false"
What is the dilemma the professor raised for pragmatic pluralism?
life presents us with questions that require concrete responses and pragmatic pluralism chooses to have a very abstract view of the Real without further questioning
The professor offered two Gettier counter-examples for the traditional definition of knowledge (knowledge is justified true belief), the Mike and Joe counter-example and the sheep in the field counter example. Describe one of these counter-examples and explain how the counter-example you choose shows that knowledge is not justified true belief.
mike sees a paper-mache version of joe that looks just like joe sitting in joes room while joe is in his room but out of view. mike then believes that joe is in his room after seeing the paper-mache joe and not the real joe, so although mike's belief is true, it is right for the wrong reasons and therefore he does not know that joe is in his room.
Which form of inclusivism does C. S. Lewis offer a narrative defense of in his story, The Last Battle? Defend your answer.
non-universalist inclusivism; the character sought the wrong God, but he was still seeking and he found the right God. then he went to heaven by his grace
What is proposition DE (doctrinal exclusivism)?
one of the great religions of the world is the one true religion
(e) This seventeenth century philosopher tries to show that one can know quite a lot, even if one accepts the CJTB theory. He does so first by noting that we can't coherently doubt _______; second, he argues that, by studying the content of our own consciousness, we can prove that ______ exists; finally, he argues we can prove the existence of the external world—and that knowledge in physics is possible—by ___________________________________________________.
our own existence; God; our natural belief that there is one given to us by God
Why think each of these four parts of Plantinga's definition of warrant is important (here, you may draw on the examples I went over in class)?
part (1) addresses the smith blow to the head example that you need proper cognitive functioning in order to know something; part (2) addresses the ...
What is the Pythagorean heliocentricists counterexample and how does it show that knowledge is not true belief based on evidence?
people in the 13th century concluded that the earth revolves around the sun but it was due to luck and not justified evidence, they just got lucky and did not actually know.
Why think that the Trudy/Judy case does not count as a counter-example to Plantinga's warrant and proper-function causal theory of knowledge?
plantinga's theory has the environmental condition, which says that the faculties have to operate in an environment or a set of circumstances consistent with the design plan of God and/or nature and humans were not designed to tell the difference between identical twins from a distance
The professor mentioned three counter examples to one of the premises of the Epicurean argument from evil. Which premise?
premise 3: a good being would prevent any evil in its power to prevent
What is proposition OTR?
religion r is the one, true religion iff the tenets of r are true and any beliefs incompatible w/ the tenets of r - even religions beliefs - are false
