Skip to main content

Quote for the Day

"Recently some philosophers have argued that Plantinga has not proved that universal transworld depravity is logically possible. It has been argued that although it is true that for all we know every essence suffers from transworld depravity, Plantinga has not shown that it is really possible. However, even if Plantinga has not shown that it is logically possible that every essence suffers from transworld depravity, philosophers such as Howard-Snyder and O’Leary-Hawthorne have thought it clear that it is epistemically possible, in the sense that we can’t rule it out. That is, for all we know, it could be the case that every essence suffers from transworld depravity. In the following I will argue that it turns out there is a good explanation of why Plantinga and others have been unable to show the hypothesis of universal transworld depravity is possible: it is necessarily false."

Richard Otte, "Transworld Depravity and Unobtainable Worlds", Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (2009) Vol. LXXVIII, No. 1, p. 165.

Popular posts from this blog

Notes on Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence"

0. Introduction
0.1 Mackie argues that the problem of evil proves that either no god exists, or at least that the god of Orthodox Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, does not exist. His argument is roughly the same version of the problem of evil that we’ve been considering.
0.2 Mackie thinks that one can avoid the conclusion that God does not exist only if one admits that either God is not omnipotent (i.e., not all-powerful), or that God is not perfectly good. 0.3 However, he thinks that hardly anyone will be willing to take this route. For doing so leaves one with a conception of a god that isn’t worthy of worship, and therefore not religiously significant.
0.4 After his brief discussion of his version of the problem of evil, he considers most of the main responses to the problem of evil, and concludes that none of them work.

1. First Response and Mackie's Reply
1.1 Response: Good can’t exist without evil; evil is a necessary counterpart to good.
1.2 Mackie’s reply:
1.2.1 this see…

Notes on Swinburne, "On Why God Allows Evil"

Notes on Swinburne’s “Why God Allows Evil”

1. The kinds of goods a theistic god would provide: deeper goods than just “thrills of pleasure and times of contentment” (p. 90). For example:
1.1 Significant freedom and responsibility
1.1.1 for ourselves
1.1.2 for others
1.1.3 for the world in which they live
1.2 Valuable lives
1.2.1 being of significant use to ourselves
1.2.2 being of significant use to each other

2. Kinds of evil
2.1 Moral evil: all the evil caused or permitted by human beings, whether intentionally or through negligence (e.g., murder, theft, etc.)
2.2 Natural evil: all the rest: evil not caused or permitted by human beings (e.g., suffering caused by hurricanes, forest fires, diseases, animal suffering, etc.)

3. The gist of Swinburne’s answer to the problem of evil: God cannot – logically cannot -- give us the goods of significant freedom, responsibility and usefulness without thereby allowing for the possibility of lots of moral and natural evil. This is why he has al…