Search results for 'argument from evil' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  27
    Daniel Howard-Snyder (ed.) (1996). The Evidential Argument From Evil. Indiana University Press.
    Is evil evidence against the existence of God? Even if God and evil are compatible, it remains hotly contested whether evil renders belief in God unreasonable. The Evidential Argument from Evil presents five classic statements on this issue by eminent philosophers and theologians and places them in dialogue with eleven original essays reflecting new thinking by these and other scholars. The volume focuses on two versions of the argument. The first affirms that there (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   15 citations  
  2. John Bishop & Ken Perszyk (2011). The Normatively Relativised Logical Argument From Evil. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 70 (2):109-126.
    It is widely agreed that the ‘Logical’ Argument from Evil (LAFE) is bankrupt. We aim to rehabilitate the LAFE, in the form of what we call the Normatively Relativised Logical Argument from Evil (NRLAFE). There are many different versions of a NRLAFE. We aim to show that one version, what we call the ‘right relationship’ NRLAFE, poses a significant threat to personal-omniGod-theism—understood as requiring the belief that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good person (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  3.  53
    Anders Kraal (2014). Has Plantinga “Buried” Mackie's Logical Argument From Evil? International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 75 (3):189-196.
    In seeking to undermine Mackie’s logical argument from evil, Plantinga assumes that Mackie’s argument regards it as a necessary truth that a wholly good God would eliminate all evil that he could eliminate. I argue that this is an interpretative mistake, and that Mackie is merely assuming that the theist believes that God’s goodness entails that God would eliminate all evil that he could eliminate. Once the difference between these two assumptions, and the implausibility (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  43
    Mark T. Nelson (1991). Naturalistic Ethics and the Argument From Evil. Faith and Philosophy 8 (3):368-379.
    Philosophical naturalism is a cluster of views and impulses typically taken to include atheism, physicalism, radical empiricism or naturalized epistemology, and some sort of relativism, subjectivism or nihilism about morality. I argue that a problem arises when the naturalist offers the argument from evil for atheism. Since the argument from evil is a moral argument, it cannot be effectively deployed by anyone who holds the denatured ethical theories that the naturalist typically holds. In (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  36
    Andrea M. Weisberger (1997). The Pollution Solution: A Critique of Dore's Response to the Argument From Evil. Sophia 36 (1):53-74.
    There is yet one more proposed solution to the argument from evil which merits attention. Though it does have elements in common with other proposed solutions in that it postulates a justifying end to account for the existence of all evil, it is different in that evil is viewed as nothing more than a polluting by-product of the proper functioning of the laws of nature in their industrious manufacture of the summum bonum. The unimpeded functioning (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. Daniel Howard-Snyder (1996). INTRODUCTION: The Evidential Argument From Evil. In The Evidential Argument from Evil.
    Evil, it is often said, poses a problem for theism, the view that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, "God," for short. This problem is usually called "the problem of evil." But this is a bad name for what philosophers study under that rubric. They study what is better thought of as an argument, or a host of arguments, rather than a problem. Of course, an argument from evil against theism can (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  7.  27
    Anders Kraal (2013). Philo's Argument From Evil in Hume's Dialogues X: A Semantic Interpretation. [REVIEW] Sophia 52 (4):573-592.
    Philo's argument from evil in a much-discussed passage in Part X of Hume's Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779) has been interpreted in three main ways: as a logical argument from evil, as an evidential argument from evil, and as an argument against natural theology's inference of a benevolent and merciful God from the course of the world. I argue that Philo is not offering an argument of any of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  10
    Bruce R. Reichenbach (1981). The Deductive Argument From Evil. Sophia 20 (1):221--227.
    First, I consider J.L. Mackie's deductive argument from evil, noting that required modifications to his premises, especially those dealing with what it is to be a good person and omnipotence, do not entail that God would be required to eliminate evil completely. Hence, no contradiction exists between God's existence, possession of certain properties, and the existence of evil. Second I evaluate McCloskey's arguments against reasons for evil often suggested by the theist: that evil (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  9.  98
    Daniel Howard-Snyder (2015). How Not to Render an Explanatory Version of the Evidential Argument From Evil Immune to Skeptical Theism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion (3):1-8.
    Among the things that students of the problem of evil think about is whether explanatory versions of the evidential argument from evil are better than others, better than William Rowe’s famous versions of the evidential argument, for example. Some of these students claim that the former are better than the latter in no small part because the former, unlike the latter, avoid the sorts of worries raised by so-called “skeptical theists”. Indeed, Trent Dougherty claims to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. Michael Bergmann (2001). Skeptical Theism and Rowe's New Evidential Argument From Evil. Noûs 35 (2):278–296.
    Skeptical theists endorse the skeptical thesis (which is consistent with the rejection of theism) that we have no good reason for thinking the possible goods we know of are representative of the possible goods there are. In his newest formulation of the evidential arguments from evil, William Rowe tries to avoid assuming the falsity of this skeptical thesis, presumably because it seems so plausible. I argue that his new argument fails to avoid doing this. Then I defend (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   32 citations  
  11.  17
    Bruce R. Reichenbach (1980). The Inductive Argument From Evil. American Philosophical Quarterly 17 (3):221 - 227.
    First I employ Bayes's Theorem to give some precision to the atheologian's thesis that it is improbable that God exists given the amount of evil in the world (E). Two arguments result from this: (1) E disconfirms God's existence, and (2) E tends to disconfirm God's existence. Secondly, I evaluate these inductive arguments, suggesting against (1) that the atheologian has abstracted from and hence failed to consider the total evidence, and against (2) that the atheologian's evidence adduced (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  36
    William L. Rowe (1996). The Evidential Argument From Evil: A Second Look. In Daniel Howard-Snyder (ed.), The Evidential Argument From Evil. Indiana University Press 262--85.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  13.  14
    Nick Trakakis (2012). What No Eye has Seen: The Skeptical Theist Response to Rowe's Evidential Argument From Evil. Philo: The Journal of the Society of Humanist Philosophers 6 (2):250-266.
    This paper examines the evidential argument from evil put forward by William Rowe during his early and middle periods . Having delineated some of the important features of Rowe’s argument, it is then assessed in the light of “the skeptical theist critique.” According to skeptical theists, Rowe’s crucial inference from inscrutable evil to pointless evil can be exposed as unwarranted, particularly by appealing to the disparity between our cognitive abilities and the infinite wisdom (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  14.  83
    Michael Tooley (1980). Alvin Plantinga and the Argument From Evil. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 58 (4):360 – 376.
    Among the central theses defended in this paper are the following. First, the logical incompatibility version of the argument from evil is not one of the crucial versions, and Plantinga, in fostering the illusion that it is, seriously misrepresents claims advanced by other philosophers. Secondly, Plantinga’s arguments against the thesis that the existence of any evil at all is logically incompatible with God’s existence. Thirdly, Plantinga’s attempt to demonstrate that the existence of a certain amount of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  15.  74
    Nick Trakakis (2006). Rowe's New Evidential Argument From Evil: Problems and Prospects. [REVIEW] Sophia 45 (1):57-77.
    This paper examines an evidential argument from evil recently defended by William Rowe, one that differs significantly from the kind of evidential argument Rowe has become renowned for defending. After providing a brief outline of Rowe’s new argument, I contest its seemingly uncontestable premise that our world is not the best world God could have created. I then engage in a lengthier discussion of the other key premise in Rowe’s argument, viz., the Leibnizian (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  55
    Richard Otte (2002). Rowe's Probabilistic Argument From Evil. Faith and Philosophy 19 (2):147-171.
    In this article I investigate Rowe's recent probabilistic argument from evil. By using muddy Venn diagrams to present his argument, we see that although his argument is fallacious, it can be modified in a way that strengthens it considerably. I then discuss the recent exchange between Rowe and Plantinga over this argument. Although Rowe's argument is not an argument from degenerate evidence as Plantinga claimed, it is problematic because it is an (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  35
    Richard Carrier (2007). Fatal Flaws in Michael Almeida's Alleged 'Defeat' of Rowe's New Evidential Argument From Evil. Philo 10 (1):85-90.
    In a previous issue of Philo, Michael Almeida claimed to have “defeated” William Rowe’s “New Evidential Argument from Evil” againstthe existence of a benevolent god. However, Almeida’s argument suffers from serious logical errors and even logical absurdities, leaving Rowe’s argument intact and quite unthreatened by anything Almeida argues.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18.  50
    Stephen R. L. Clark (2004). Progress and the Argument From Evil. Religious Studies 40 (2):181-192.
    The argument from evil, though it is the most effective rhetorical argument against orthodox theism, fails to demonstrate its conclusion, since we are unavoidably ignorant whether there is more evil than could possibly be justified. That same ignorance infects any claims to discern a divine purpose in nature, as well as recent attempts at a broadly Irenaean theodicy. Evolution is not, on neo-Darwinian theory, intellectually, morally, or spiritually progressive in the way that some religious thinkers (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  26
    Robert Lehe (2009). The Nihilistic Consequences of the Argument From Evil. International Philosophical Quarterly 49 (4):427-437.
    The evidential argument for atheism from evil may be appealing because it seems both less naïve and more enlightened than theism. However, implicit in the argument that the world contains so much evil that it could not have been created by God is the tacitnihilistic proposition that the world is so bad that it would be better that it not exist at all. Besides entailing an unattractive rejection of the worth of the existence of the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  23
    Eric Reitan (2000). Does the Argument From Evil Assume a Consequentialist Morality? Faith and Philosophy 17 (3):306-319.
    In this paper, I argue that the some of the most popular and influential formulations of the Argument from Evil (AE) assume a moral perspective that is essentially consequentialist, and would therefore be unacceptable to deontologists. Specifically, I examine formulations of the argument offered by William Rowe and Bruce Russell, both of whom explicitly assert that their formulation of AE is theoretically neutral with respect to consequentialism, and can be read in a way that is unobjectionable (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  19
    Jeff Jordan (2001). Blocking Rowe's New Evidential Argument From Evil. Religious Studies 37 (4):435-449.
    The first part of this paper exposits William Rowe's latest version of the evidential argument from evil. Integral to this new version is what we can call the 'level-playing field' requirement, which regulates probability values. It is the argument of the second part of this paper that either the two premises of the new version are regulated by the level-playing-field requirement or they're not. If they are both regulated, then no one would be in position to (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22.  3
    Stephen R. L. Clark (2004). Progress and the Argument From Evil. Religious Studies 40 (2):181-192.
    The argument from evil, though it is the most effective rhetorical argument against orthodox theism, fails to demonstrate its conclusion, since we are unavoidably ignorant whether there is more evil than could possibly be justified. That same ignorance infects any claims to discern a divine purpose in nature, as well as recent attempts at a broadly Irenaean theodicy. Evolution is not, on neo-Darwinian theory, intellectually, morally, or spiritually progressive in the way that some religious thinkers (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23.  3
    David Gordon (1983). Is the Argument From Evil Decisive? Religious Studies 19 (3):407 - 410.
    Dale Lugenbehl, in ‘Can the Argument from Evil Be Decisive After All?’ provides a powerful defence of the argument from evil against several theistic objections to it. In my opinion, however, he has failed to prove his case. The question of the consistency of the amount of evil existing in the world with the existence of God remains, after Lugenbehl's argument, exactly where it was before – in a state of uncertainty.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  1
    Douglas Langston (1980). The Argument From Evil: Reply to Professor Richman: Douglas Langston. Religious Studies 16 (1):103-113.
    The problem of evil has traditionally been formulated as a claim about the incompatibility of the statements ‘God exists’ and ‘There occur instances of suffering’. Hume, for example, in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion , part x, claims that the statements ‘God exists’ and ‘There occur instances of suffering’ are incompatible. In his esssy ‘Hume on Evil’, Nelson Pike argues that it has not been shown that the statements ‘God exists’ and ‘There occur instances of suffering’ are incompatible (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25.  2
    Daniel Howard-Snyder (ed.) (2008). The Evidential Argument From Evil. Indiana University Press.
    Is evil evidence against the existence of God? Even if God and evil are compatible, it remains hotly contested whether evil renders belief in God unreasonable. The Evidential Argument from Evil presents five classic statements on this issue by eminent philosophers and theologians and places them in dialogue with eleven original essays reflecting new thinking by these and other scholars. The volume focuses on two versions of the argument. The first affirms that there (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26. Dale Lugenbehl (1982). Can the Argument From Evil Be Decisive After All? Religious Studies 18 (1):29 - 35.
    The argument from evil is an argument which attempts to prove that God does not exist by arguing that the amount of evil in the world is incompatible with the existence ofan all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect being. Theists have traditionally responded to this argument by saying that God is not morally responsible for failure to prevent evil because he cannot do so consistently with maintaining human free agency, because the evil is (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27. Andrea M. Weisberger (1990). A Defense of the Argument From Evil: A Critique of Pure Theism. Dissertation, Vanderbilt University
    This dissertation alleges to successfully defend the argument from evil and thereby show that belief in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god is implausible. The three basic premises of the argument juxtapose the perfect attributes of the traditional Western notion of god to the existence of evil in an attempt to lead to the conclusion that god lacks one or more of the aforementioned attributes. Though some argue that the conclusion is not necessitated by the (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28.  39
    Quentin Smith (1991). An Atheological Argument From Evil Natural Laws. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 29 (3):159 - 174.
    A clearer case of a horrible event in nature, a natural evil, has never been presented to me. It seemed to me self evident that the natural law that animals must savagely kill and devour each other in order to survive was an evil natural law and that the obtaining of this law was sufficient evidence that God did not exist. If I held a certain epistemological theory about "basic beliefs", I might conclude from this experience that (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  29.  8
    Daniel Howard-Snyder (1996). The Argument From Inscrutable Evil. In The Evidential Argument From Evil. Indiana University Press 286--310.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  30. Alvin Plantinga (1979). The Probabilistic Argument From Evil. Philosophical Studies 35 (1):1 - 53.
    First I state and develop a probabilistic argument for the conclusion that theistic belief is irrational or somehow noetically improper. Then I consider this argument from the point of view of the major contemporary accounts of probability, Concluding that none of them offers the atheologian aid and comfort.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  31.  75
    Andrea M. Weisberger (2007). The Argument From Evil. In Michael Martin (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge
    Where was God? Where was the intelligent designer of the universe when 1.5 million children were turned into smoke by zealous Nazis? Where was the all powerful, all knowing, wholly good being whose very essence is radically opposed to evil, while millions of children were starved to death by Stalin, had their limbs chopped off with machetes in Rwanda, were turned into amputees by the diamond trade in Sierra Leone, and worked to death, even now, by the child slave (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32.  7
    Robert J. Richman (1969). The Argument From Evil. Religious Studies 4 (2):203 - 211.
    First I employ bayes' theorem to give some precision to the atheologian's thesis that it is improbable that God exists given the amount of evil in the world (e). Two arguments result from this: (1) e disconfirms god's existence, And (2) e tends to disconfirm god's existence. Secondly, I evaluate these inductive arguments, Suggesting against (1) that the atheologian has abstracted from and hence failed to consider the total evidence, And against (2) that the atheologian's evidence adduced (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  33.  2
    Robert J. Richman (1969). The Argument From Evil: ROBERT J. RICHMAN. Religious Studies 4 (2):203-211.
    The traditional problem of evil is set forth, by no means for the first time, in Part X of Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion in these familiar words: ‘Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?’ This formulation of the problem of evil obviously suggests an argument to the effect that (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  34. Daniel Howard-Snyder & John Hawthorne (1994). On the a Priori Rejection of Evidential Arguments From Evil. Sophia:33-47.
    Recent work on the evidential argument from evil offers us sundry considerations which are intended to weigh against this form of atheological arguments. By far the most provocative is that on a priori grounds alone, evil can be shown to be evidentially impotent. This astonishing thesis has been given a vigorous defense by Keith Yandell. In this paper, we shall measure the prospects for an a priori dismissal of evidential arguments from evil.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35.  39
    Daniel Howard-Snyder (2005). On Rowe's Argument From Particular Horrors. In Kelly Clark (ed.), Readings in Philosophy of Religion. Broadview
    This article assesses Bill Rowe's 1979 version of the evidential argument from evil.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36.  46
    John Bishop (2013). The Argument From Evil and the God of 'Frightening' Love. Sophia 52 (1):45-49.
  37. William P. Alston (1991). The Inductive Argument From Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition. Philosophical Perspectives 5:29-67.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   18 citations  
  38.  50
    David Silver (2002). Religious Experience and the Evidential Argument From Evil. Religious Studies 38 (3):339-353.
    This paper examines Alvin Plantinga's defence of theistic belief in the light of Paul Draper's formulation of the problem of evil. Draper argues (a) that the facts concerning the distribution of pain and pleasure in the world are better explained by a hypothesis which does not include the existence of God than by a hypothesis which does; and (b) that this provides an epistemic challenge to theists. Plantinga counters that a theist could accept (a) yet still rationally maintain a (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. Peter Van Inwagen (2004). The Argument From Evil. In Peter van Inwagen (ed.), Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil. Eerdmans
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40.  76
    Paul Draper (2012). Darwin's Argument From Evil. In Yujin Nagasawa (ed.), Scientific Approaches to the Philosophy of Religion. Palgrave Macmillan 49.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  41.  87
    Michael Tooley (1991). The Argument From Evil. Philosophical Perspectives 5:89-134.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  42. Frederick Sontag (1970). The God of Evil: An Argument From the Existence of the Devil. New York,Harper & Row.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  71
    Alvin Plantinga (1998). Degenerate Evidence and Rowe's New Evidential Argument From Evil. Noûs 32 (4):531-544.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  44. William Rowe (1986). The Empirical Argument From Evil. In William Wainwright & Robert Audi (eds.), Rationality, Religious Belief, and Moral Commitment. Cornell University Press 227--247.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  45. Richard Swinburne (1996). The Evidential Argument From Evil. Indiana Univ Pr.
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  46. Thomas M. Crisp (2011). An Evolutionary Objection to the Argument From Evil. In Kelly James Clark & Raymond J. VanArragon (eds.), Evidence and Religious Belief. Oxford University Press
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  47.  26
    Bruce Russell & Stephen Wykstra (2009). 7. The “Inductive” Argument From Evil. Philosophical Topics 16 (2):133-160.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  29
    Stephen Wykstra (1988). The “Inductive” Argument From Evil. Philosophical Topics 16 (2):133-160.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  49.  26
    James F. Sennett (1993). The Inscrutable Evil Defense Against the Inductive Argument From Evil. Faith and Philosophy 10 (2):220-229.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  50.  21
    Glen T. Martin (1997). The Evidential Argument From Evil. Teaching Philosophy 20 (2):221-224.
1 — 50 / 1000