The Christian Vanguard

The following is a study guide I typed out for my philosophy of religion class. The Problem of Evil A. “Evil and Omnipotence” J.L. Mackie (1) Explain the problem of evil. The problem of evil states there is a contradiction within this set of statements: God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, and evil exists. Since God is omnibenevolent, God wishes to abolish evil, and since God is omnipotent, then God could abolish evil. If an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God exists, then evil does not exist. But since evil exists, then an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God does not exist. (2) Explain the problems with the four fallacious solutions Mackie considers. 1. “Good cannot exist without evil” or “Evil is a necessary counterpart to good” The main problem with this response is that it restricts God’s omnipotence, if not outright rejects it. If God and evil are necessary counterparts, then God cannot eliminate evil. This would also make “good” and “evil” similar to being “great” and “small”, but ...

I have been reflecting on my many regrets lately. The biggest of which is my consumption of carbs. I should have had my sandwich lettuce wrapped instead of on buns. I should have let my girlfriend have my chicken nuggets, instead of consuming them all by myself them like a fatty. So, I go home, and I have remorse. "Why am I like this? Why wasn't I able to control myself?" Plato considers it, and so does Aristotle to some extent. Of course, I was able to control myself. It wasn't like I was sitting down, watching myself on a TV screen, and seeing someone else control my body as if I were being possessed. No one possessed me. If I go to a dinner, and I let myself go, I say I lost control. In a literal sense, I did not lose control, but something did come over me, and that was my appetites (both in Aristotlean sense and in the common sense). My emotions came over me, and I decided to follow that. What we mean by losing control is that we let our reason lose control....

We have all been, or know someone who has been, "emotional." What does this mean? That they have some strong emotions, yes, but that alone cannot be a good answer. When a groom cries when he sees his bride walk down the aisle has some strong emotions, but we wouldn't say he is "being emotional." When a parents loses their child, she may cry but we wouldn't say that she should stop "being emotional." Contrast this with the interchangeable phrase "be rational." Likewise, we do not say that one ought not have emotions and be nothing but rational. This is an even worse mistake. So what do we mean?  Observe what happens when someone is "being emotional." Say Eve breaks up with Adam. Adam doesn't like this, so what Adam does is lash out. He lashes out in anger because it feels right to him. But is lashing out the correct thing to do? Ask Adam, and he will do one of two things: he will say admit that it is not the right thing,...

The following was a paper I turned in for class. There are footnotes, but they don't copy over for whatever reason.  Socrates argues that the soul has three parts, the appetite, the spirit, and reason. “Part” refers to a faculty that moves us to act. Since there are movements of the human soul that desire contradictory things, the origins of those desires must therefore be distinct. He argues for this by first putting forth the principle of noncontradiction when he says a thing cannot want or do contradictory things. If the soul wanted to do something contradictory, like to drink and not to drink, then we would be dealing with something else other than a whole unified soul. We would be dealing with some part of the soul instead. In further establishing this approach, Socrates deals with some possible counter examples, such as a moving man or a spinning top. In the case of a man who may move his arms and legs, this is dealt with by distinguishing the parts of the man which move...