Reference no: EM133347649
Questions:
1. How is the story of Russell's teapot supposed to show that atheism (rather than agnosticism) should be the default position?
2. Consider the following:
We already have a bunch of antecedent beliefs about teapots (and other human artifacts): what they are, what they're used for, how they are made, etc. . . . And, given these beliefs, we would take it to be extremely unlikely for there to be a teapot somewhere between the Earth and Mars revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. But, if we've never heard of God before, we wouldn't have a bunch of antecedent beliefs about what an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being would be like. Explain why this is supposed to constitute an objection to Russell's china teapot argument. Do you find this objection compelling? Why or why not?
3. Why is the logical problem of evil supposed to be easy to solve?
4. What was the paradox of the stone?
Why does the free will required for the free will defense need to be libertarian free will? (Why isn't it enough for us to satisfy the compatibilst conception of freedom?)
5. (a) Explain why our merely having free will-even libertarian free will-isn't enough to make free will defense plausible. What more do we need to say about our freedom?
(b) State and explain the playpen problem.
(c) What is the problem of natural evil? Why is this supposed to pose a problem for the free will defense?
(d). Explain how Augustine's argument that everything is good constitutes a response to the problem of evil. What is wrong with Augustine's argument?