Quick Links
- Book
- 200 (or so) Arguments for Atheism
- Index: Assessing Theism
- Why Mainstream Scholars Think Jesus Was A Failed Apocalyptic Prophet
- What's Wrong With Plantinga's Proper Functionalism?
- Draper's Critique of Behe's Design Argument
- The Failure of Plantinga's Free Will Defense
- 100 Arguments for God Answered
- Thomistic Arguments for God Answered
- On a Common Apologetic Strategy
- On Caring About and Pursuing Truth
- A Priori Naturalism, A Priori Inerrantism, and the Bible
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A Quick Objection to the Modal Ontological Argument
(From an old Facebook post of mine back in 2018) Assume Platonism about properties, propositions, and possible worlds. Such is the natural b...
4 comments:
Does Rowe and/or Tooley argue that belief in gratuitous evil is properly basic, or an inductive inference?
Consider the following argument:
(1) "There are other minds" is more plausibly a Moorean fact than "There are vast amounts of gratuitous evil." (i.e., it seems the former is more epistemically firm, justified, commensical, etc).
Add a Plantingian premise:
(2) The belief that "God loves me" is no epistemically worse than "There are other minds".
And we're home free:
(3) Therefore, "God loves me" is more plausibly a Moorean fact than "There are vast amounts of gratuitous evil."
If (3), then the belief that "God loves me" undermines or one's justification for the belief that "There are vast amounts of gratuitous evil," because the former has stronger epistemic warrant and the two are incompatible.
But why should one accept or even suspect that the belief that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being, creator of all other beings (or whatever you mean by 'God'), and that said being loves you (or a trivially equivalent belief), is no epistemically worse than the belief that there are other minds?
Yeah, that's kind of a bald, novel point that hasn't been defended before... Maybe I could get a book contract with CUP on that.
Post a Comment