Search

As a counterpoint to demonstrative proofs in metaphysics, Robert Nozick presented the case for God's existence based on the value of personal experiences. Personal experiences shape one's life, but this is even more evident with extraordinary experiences, such can be religious ones. In the next step, says the argument, if those experiences can be explained only by invoking the concept of the Supreme Being, then God exists. The second step mirrors scientific explanation constituting what Nozick calls the "argument to the best explanation." The argument is set against the background of Nozick's methodology which rejects demonstrative proofs in metaphysics. Its purpose is threefold. It aims to establish a certain sort of experience (religious/spiritual) as a legitimate basis for the argumentation; it aims to show that it is not philosophically blasphemous to explain such experiences by introducing a concept of divinity. Finally, it seeks to showcase the non-dogmatic, investigative nature of the argument. By exploring the merits of Nozick's proposal, I will try to elucidate all three components, which should pave the way for a broader discussion on the role of non-demonstrative arguments in metaphysics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, I first reflect on the background of the debate between myself and Eikrem and Søvik and make some clarificatory remarks about the term "Only Way argument", which figured in the article that started the exchange. I then map areas of agreement and disagreement between us, with an eye to discerning promising and less promising paths forward in the field of evolutionary theodicy. Finally, I respond to Eikrem's and Søvik's criticism of my previous arguments about token-goods. Zusammenfassung: In diesem Artikel reflektiere ich zunächst den Hintergrund meiner Debatte mit Eikrem und Søvik und mache einige verdeutlichende Bemerkungen zum „Only Way-Argument", das im ersten Artikel dieses Austausches eine Rolle spielte. Anschließend erläutere ich, in welchen Punkten wir einer Meinung sind und in welchen nicht, um dadurch vielversprechende von weniger vielversprechenden Ansätzen im Bereich der evolutionären Theodizee unterscheiden zu können. Zum Schluss antworte ich auf Eikrems und Søviks Kritik an meinen bisherigen Argumenten zu token-Güter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How can the immense amount of suffering and waste inherent in the evolutionary process be reconciled with the existence of a perfectly good and omnipotent God? A widely embraced proposal in the area of "evolutionary theodicy" is the so-called "Only Way"-argument. This argument contends that certain valuable goods – in particular, creaturely independence and human freedom – can only come about through a genuinely indeterministic and partly uncontrolled process of evolution. In a previous article, I have argued that the "Only Way"-argument can be defeated by a "Twin Earth"-thought experiment: If God is omnipotent, he could have created – directly, without evolution – creatures that are molecule-for-molecule identical to those that he actually created through evolution. If the creatures that he actually created have freedom and independence, there is no valid reason to deny that the non-evolved "twin creatures" would also be free and independent. Recently, Eikrem and Søvik (ES) have suggested a way of blocking my Twin Earth-argument by appealing to the distinction between type-values and token-values (or type-goods and token-goods). While ES admit that the Twin Earth-argument shows the non-necessity of evolution for the existence of certain type-goods, they argue that an evolutionary creation can be justified by appeal to valuable token-goods (unique particulars) that could not have existed without evolution. In this article, I respond to ES's token-goods argument by showing that it is incompatible with a basic presupposition of "Only Way" evolutionary theodicies, namely the claim that the evolutionary process is genuinely indeterministic and partly uncontrolled. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Kurt Gödels Ontological Proof von 1970 ist einer der bedeutendsten Beweise der Existenz Gottes unserer Zeit. Die Formulierung in formaler Logik erschwert erstens das Verständnis und scheint zweitens einen unbedingten Wahrheitsbezug zu implizieren. Seit seiner Veröffentlichung bis heute wurde sich auf vielfältige Weise mit dem Beweis auseinandergesetzt und dazu publiziert. Allerdings fehlt bislang eine theologische – insbesondere eine protestantisch-theologische – Auseinandersetzung. Dieser Aufsatz soll eine systematische Übersicht über die bisherige Forschung sowie eine Einführung und Erläuterung des Beweises geben. Der theologische Forschungsbeitrag besteht hierbei vor allem in einer Relativierung einiger mit dem Beweis und seiner Rezeption verbundenen Ansprüche. Summary: Kurt Gödel's Ontological Proof (1970) is probably one of the most important proofs of God's existence of our times. The argument is based on formal logic: Firstly, this makes the argument quite hard to access; secondly, the argument seems to claim universal truth. Since its publication, many papers have been written, dealing with different aspects of this argument. However, a theological – and especially a protestant theological – consideration of the argument is still missing. This paper will give a systematic overview of the research that has already been conducted as well as introduce and explain the formal structure of the argument. The theological contribution can be seen by putting claims about God's ontological status based on Gödels' work into perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is usually supposed that biological design arguments (where biological complex order is seen as evidence of a Creator) are made obsolete by Darwinian evolutionary theory. However, philosopher Alvin Plantinga and others have defended the continued possibility of a rational “design discourse”, in which biological order is taken as a sign of God’s purposeful action. In this article, I consider two objections to design discourse: (1) a theological objection to biological design based on the problem of natural evil, and (2) the evolutionary objection, according to which evolutionary theory removes the justification for any biological design perception. Whereas Plantinga’s own response utilizes the arguments of the Intelligent Design movement, I argue in favor of utilizing “design discourse” as part of a theistic evolutionist view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a reconstruction and discussion of Holm Tetens' new moral argument for theistic belief. The argument is a pragmatic one in that it intends to show that believing in God is rational because it has some morally desirable consequences. It asserts that the suffering of countless victims of evil in this world causes in atheists who try to be moral some morally questionable states of mind. By contrast, theists who have certain beliefs about the afterlife, judgment, and reconciliation are not subject to these bad states of mind. Therefore, Tetens argues, theistic belief is more rational than disbelief. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whether the past or future can be infinite is an interesting question for theologians working on the relationship between God and Time as well as Eschatology. In a recent exchange, Wes Morriston concluded that if William Lane Craig's familiar line of argument against the possibility of a beginningless series of events worked, it would work just as well against the possibility of an endless series of predetermined events. He argued that neither Craig's claim that an endless series of events is potential infinite nor the claim that future events don't exist is successful in blocking this conclusion. I argue that a proponent of the Kalam Argument does not have to follow Craig's denial of an actual infinite number of propositions, and I show how Morriston's conclusion can be blocked. In particular, I argue that an asymmetric treatment of past and future is justified on a dynamic theory of time, while the distinction between abstract and concrete infinities is helpful for responding to Morriston's counter-argument based on the number of angelic praises yet-to-be-said. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]