The Fragility of Value and God’s Non-Existence
I’m working on a new version of the problem of evil. I don’t know if the argument works, but I’ll summarize it here in the hope of getting feedback. The basic idea is the fragility of value, viz., how (relatively) easy it is to destroy things compared to how (relatively) difficult it is to create … The Fragility of Value and God’s Non-Existence
William Rowe’s Fawn
I spotted this fawn this morning while walking my dog. Judging by the size and the wet fur on the top of the head, I’d guess it was born in the last day. It’s bigger than my cats but smaller than my dog. The mother was nowhere to be seen, presumably off foraging for food. Hopefully … William Rowe’s Fawn
G&T Rebuttal, Part 6: Chapter 7
Chapter 7. Mother Theresa vs. Hitler In this chapter, G&T present a version of the moral argument for God’s existence which I call the “Moral Laws Require a Moral Lawgiver Argument,” which they formulate as follows. Like the earlier arguments, this argument is deductively valid. Like the earlier chapters about this argument, I plan to … G&T Rebuttal, Part 6: Chapter 7
Evolution vs. The Argument from Providence
In the Existence of God (2nd edition, hereafter: EOG) Richard Swinburne lays out a carefully constructed, systematically presented case for the the claim that it is more likely than not that God exists. I have previously argued that there is a big problem with this case that arises with the third argument. In order to know that … Evolution vs. The Argument from Providence
Index: Draper’s Evidential Argument from Pain and Pleasure
The purpose of this page is to provide an index for my blog series on Paul Draper’s classic 1989 article defending an evidential argument from evil which focuses on the biological role (and apparent moral randomness) of pain and pleasure. See also:
Draper on Pain and Pleasure: Part 4
This post is part of a series on Paul Draper’s classic version of the evidential argument from evil. In the previous entry, I summarized Draper’s refutation of three theodicies which might be used as an objection to the claim that HI explains the facts about the biological role of pain and pleasure much better than T … Draper on Pain and Pleasure: Part 4
Draper on Pain and Pleasure: Part 3
This post is part of a series on Paul Draper’s classic version of the evidential argument from evil. In the previous entry, I summarized Draper’s first argument, which attempts to show that certain facts about the types, quantity, and distribution of pain and pleasure (P&P) are much more probable on the hypothesis of indifference (HI) … Draper on Pain and Pleasure: Part 3
Draper on Pain and Pleasure: Part 2
This post is part of a series on Paul Draper’s classic version of the evidential argument from evil. In the previous entry, I explained Draper’s terminology and summarized the logical form of Draper’s two arguments. In this entry, I focus on Draper’s first argument, which attempts to show that known facts about the biological role of … Draper on Pain and Pleasure: Part 2
Draper on Pain and Pleasure: Part One
The academic journal Nous published an article by Paul Draper in 1989 on the evidential argument from evil. (The article used to be available online for free but is now only available behind a paywall at JSTOR.) The article is now widely regarded as a ‘classic’ in the contemporary literature on the problem of evil; it … Draper on Pain and Pleasure: Part One
Marilyn McCord Adams on Horrendous Evils
Marilyn McCord Adams is a Christian philosopher and a former Episcopalian priest who has thought deeply about so-called horrendous evils. I define ‘horrendous evils’ as ‘Evils the participation in (the doing or suffering of) which gives one reason prima facie to doubt whether one’s life could (given their inclusion in it) be a great good … Marilyn McCord Adams on Horrendous Evils