Philosophy Radio! drlabasham777's Podcast
Society & Culture:Philosophy
More epistemology! (Theory of Knowledge.) The “Logical Problem of Evil” goes like this,
P1) God is all knowing, all powerful and morally perfect.
P2) An all knowing, all powerful and morally perfect being would end all evil now.
P3) There is evil.
C) God does not exist (see def. (P1)).
Does this work? It is valid. Again, that means if the premises (p this and that) are true the conclusion must be.The argument is valid. So, is the argument sound? That is, Valid and has All True Premises. Because it the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Let’s see what’s behind the curtain.
What can we know about the truth of the premises?
We have (a) Plantinga’s Freewill defense and (b) Swinburne’s “person improvement” arguments. For instance, the acquisition of knowledge. So, we have some issues with this. Premise 2 (P2) may easily be false.
But we are not out of the woods yet, when we turn to the complexities of William Rowe’s powerful reformulation and Stephen Wykstra’s response to this. That’s what we will address next, but first we have to get our minds around the “Logical Problem of Evil” before we turn to Rowe’s “Evidential” or “Probabilistic” argument from evil against the existence of God. All very fascinating.
Cheers~
Dr. Lee Basham
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free