Narges Karimi Vaghef; Abdolrasoul Kashfi; MohammadReza Bayat
Abstract
The contradiction between divine “omnipotence” and “omnibenevolence” is a major debate in philosophy of religion studies. Based on divine omnibenevolence, it is said that “he cannot do immoral actions”. On the surface, at least, this doctrine appears to be in ...
Read More
The contradiction between divine “omnipotence” and “omnibenevolence” is a major debate in philosophy of religion studies. Based on divine omnibenevolence, it is said that “he cannot do immoral actions”. On the surface, at least, this doctrine appears to be in conflict with the doctrine of divine omnipotence. An omnipotent being is one that can do all things possible; and, surely, it is possible to do immoral action. Nelson Pike discusses this matter in detail. He suggests as to how the various senses of “God cannot do moral actions” ought to be sorted out. Based on Pike’s suggestion, although the individual that is God has the ability to do immoral actions, His nature or character is such as to provide assurance that He will not act in this way. Joshua Hoffman maintains that Pike’s strategy for resolving the dilemma fails because it commits him to God’s being contingently omnibenevolent (not necessarily). In response, Pike accepts that God is not necessarily omnibenevolent and it’s the only way to resolve the dilemma. In Pike’s defense, the discrimination between “logical necessity” and “metaphysical necessity” should be noted. Further, we should distinguish between “the title of God” and “the individual of God”. “The title of God is benevolent” is metaphysically necessary while “The individual of God is contingently benevolent”. Therefore “God is necessarily benevolent” based on His title but this necessity doesn’t result in any limit for divine omnipotence.
Fateme Saeedi; Abdolrasoul Kashfi; Amirabbas Alizamani
Abstract
Skeptical theism is one of the theistic responses to the evidential problem of evil. This approach which is included of different ideas, with emphasizing on human cognitive limitations and complicated axiological reality, casts doubt on the claim of gratuitous evil. This article is based on Bergmann’s ...
Read More
Skeptical theism is one of the theistic responses to the evidential problem of evil. This approach which is included of different ideas, with emphasizing on human cognitive limitations and complicated axiological reality, casts doubt on the claim of gratuitous evil. This article is based on Bergmann’s idea, who is one of the prominent philosopher in this sphere. He challenges William Rowe’s inductive argument with his skeptical theses which are based on “representative” principle. Bergmann’s articles in this sphere are influential and highly controversial. One of the main objections to his idea is that his skeptical theses lead to moral impasse, both in theoretical (moral justification) and pragmatic aspect. This is against our approach in our everyday moral life. Since this position is not acceptable in everyday moral life, skeptical theism is not acceptable either. Although Bergmann accepts limitations in sphere of value, he doesn’t think it makes problem for skeptical theism. This article first introduce representative approach of Bergmann then considering objections and responses to them. At least it becomes clear that Bergmann’s solutions does not response objections rightly.
zahra karandish; Abdolrasoul Kashfi
Volume 3, Issue 1 , February 2015, , Pages 97-125
Abstract
The theory of middle knowledge is one of the responses to ‘theological fatalism’. The key point of theological fatalism is that if God is Omniscience and knows everything about the future, then the free agents cannot do anything but the one that God had known in eternity; so, they are not ...
Read More
The theory of middle knowledge is one of the responses to ‘theological fatalism’. The key point of theological fatalism is that if God is Omniscience and knows everything about the future, then the free agents cannot do anything but the one that God had known in eternity; so, they are not free in their acts. The theory solves this difficulty through proving that God has pre-volition knowledge to all counterfactuals of freedom. But, William Hasker, the American philosopher of religion, believes that there are no true counterfactual of freedom; therefore, the theory of middle knowledge is not correct. In this article, based on Thomas Flint’s views, we show that some premises of Hasker’s argument is not true; consequently, he is not successful in refuting middle knowledge.
