User:KSci/sandbox

Criticism in Academic Philosophy

The last 50 years has seen an increase in academic philosophical arguments criticizing the positions of atheism as philosophically unsound. Some of the more common of these arguments are the presumption of atheism, the logical argument from evil, the evidential argument from evil, the argument from nonbelief, and absence of evidence arguments.

Presumption of atheism

<text>

Logical argument from evil

The logical argument from evil to which Alvin Plantinga responded is an argument against Christian beliefs claiming that a logical contradiction exists between four theological tenets in orthodox Christian theology. Specifically, the argument from evil asserts that the following set of propositions are, by themselves, logically inconsistent or contradictory:

1. God is omniscient (all-knowing)
2. God is omnipotent (all-powerful)
3. God is omnibenevolent (morally perfect)
4. There is evil in the world

Most orthodox Christian theologians agree with the first three propositions describing God as all-knowing (1), all-powerful (2), and morally perfect (3), and agree with the proposition that there is evil in the world, as described in proposition (4). The logical argument from evil asserts that a God with the attributes (1-3), above, must know about the evil in proposition (4) because of the omniscience of proposition (1), would be capable of preventing it because of the omnipotence of proposition (2), and would be motivated to do so due to the moral perfection of proposition (4). The argument from evil then concludes that the existence of the orthodox Christian God is incompatible with the existence of evil and can be logically ruled out. Alvin Plantinga's free will defense proves that the four tenets of the argument from evil are not explicitly contradictory; they only seem contradictory by assuming unstated questionable premises. In the absence of an explicit contradiction, Plantinga's free will defense offers an argument most philosophers regard as successful in proving that God could have morally sufficient reasons to permit evil. With the introduction of the moral value of human free will, a viable morally sufficient reason why God might permit evil is demonstrated, undermining, but not disproving, the argument from evil.

Criticism of the argument from evil

It is widely agreed among contemporary philosophers that the logical problem of evil has been dissolved.

by an argument advanced by Analytic Philosopher Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga's answer to the logical problem from evil pointed out that the idea that God is omnipotent cannot be construed to mean that God can literally do anything. An omnipotent God cannot do the logically impossible, such as creating square circles, or act contrary to his nature.

the preservation of of human free will could very well provide a morally sufficient reason for God to permit suffering and evil. The Philosopher J.L Mackie, one of the chief exponents of the logical problem of evil, responded to Plantinga's defense saying "we can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of [Christian] theism are logically inconsistent with one another." Mackie does not completely abandon the logical argument from evil continuing

Academic and theological The analytic Philosopher William Lane Craig describes the reasons many philosophers consider

But the problem with this argument is that there’s no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. There’s no explicit contradiction between them. But if the atheist means there’s some implicit contradiction between God and evil, then he must be assuming some hidden premises which bring out this implicit contradiction. But the problem is that no philosopher has ever been able to identify such premises. Therefore, the logical problem of evil fails to prove any inconsistency between God and evil. But more than that: we can actually prove that God and evil are logically consistent. You see, the atheist presupposes that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world. But this assumption is not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent.

— William Lane Craig, The Problem of Evil, ReasonableFaith.com

The Philosopher Alvin Plantinga, a modal logician, described the morally sufficient reason that God could have for permitting evil in an argument entitled the 'free will defense'.

God's creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate much of the evil and suffering in this world without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will with whom he could have relationships and who are able to love one another and do good deeds.

— Alvin Plantinga, God Freedom, a Evil

Analytic philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig listed some of the more prominent arguments forwarded by proponents of atheism:

• "The Hiddenness of God" is the claim that if God existed, God would have prevented the world's unbelief by making his existence starkly apparent. Craig argues that the problem with this argument is that there is no reason to believe that any more evidence than what is already available would increase the number of people believing in God.
• "The Incoherence of Theism" is the claim that the notion of God is incoherent. Craig argues that a coherent doctrine of God's attributes can be formulated based on scripture, like Medieval theologians had done, and "Prefect Being Theology" and that the argument actually helps in refining the concept of God.
• "The Problem of Evil" can be split into two different concerns: the "intellectual" problem of evil concerns how to give a rational explanation of the co-existence of God and evil and the "emotional" problem of evil concerns how to comfort those who are suffering and how to dissolve the emotional dislike people have of a God who would permit such evil. The latter can be dealt with in a diverse manner. Concerning the "intellectual" argument, it is often cast as an incompatibility between statements such as "an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God exists" and "the quantity and kinds of suffering in the world exist". Craig argues that no one has shown that both statements are logically incompatible or improbable with respect to each other. Others use another version of the intellectual argument called the "evidential problem of evil" which claims that the apparently unnecessary or "gratuitous" suffering in the world constitutes evidence against God's existence. Craig argues that it is not clear that the suffering that appears to be gratuitous actually is gratuitous for various reasons, one of which is similar to objection to utilitarian ethical theory, that it is quite simply impossible for us to estimate which action will ultimately lead to the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure in the world.

T.J. Mawson makes a case against atheism by citing some lines of evidence and reasoning such as the high level of fine-tuning whereby the life of morally sentient and significantly free creatures like humans has implications. On the maximal multiverse hypothesis, he argues that in appealing to infinite universes one is in essence explaining too much and that it even opens up the possibility that certain features of the universe still would require explanation beyond the hypothesis itself. He also argues from induction for fine tuning in that if one supposed that infinite universes existed there should be infinite ways in which observations can be wrong on only one way in which observations can be right at any point in time, for instance, that the color of gems stay the same every time we see them. In other words, if infinite universes existed, then there should be infinite changes to our observations of the universe and in essence be unpredictable in infinite ways, yet this is not what occurs.