1. Using the language of possible worlds, explain what it means to say that ‘p is consistent with q.’ The idea that p is consistent with q is a logical premise that supposes there is a world in which p and q can both be true. This premise contrasts with the premise that p is contradictory of q, which states that if p is true, q must be false and there can be no possible world in which both are true and neither can there be one in which both are false. The idea here is that when p is consistent with q, the world in which such a premise could be true is one in which there may be a conjunctive proposition underlying the concept or there may simply be a nullification of the linguistic theory of necessary truth.

2. What is P.S.R. (The Principle of Sufficient Reason), and how is it important in Leibniz’s thinking about God and evil?

The principle of sufficient reason refers to the idea that everything has to have a reason or cause and that nothing can exist or happen that does not have a cause or logical reason to support its motion or existence. In the case of the universe, this idea presupposes that the world was created by a self-sufficient infinite being (God) because nothing cannot come from something. As for evil, it would imply that the existence of evil is maintained by the same self-sufficient infinite being for the purposes of some benevolent end. The attribute of benevolence is applied to the Christian Triune God, and is used to rationalize the existence of evil as part of God’s plan, as part of the purpose of Redemption, and as part of the consequence of man’s use of free will.[footnoteRef:2] [2: N. T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 40.]

3. What is George Schlesinger’s main solution to the problem of evil? (Make sure to discuss centrally the role the concept of the ‘DDS’ plays, and how he uses the principle of ‘ought implies can,’ and what that principle means.)

DDS refers to the degree of desirability of state of a being and that the problem of evil disappears when one considers that one’s happiness can be increased without limit. The principle that “ought implies can” refers to the idea that if a being ought to behave a certain way, the means for that being to behave in that manner do exist and can be utilized. Thus, whatever evil or obstacle may appear to be presenting a being from attaining happiness is really only a surface problem for God’s...

In your own words, what is Rowe’s evidential argument from evil? (Write it down in a valid argument form, with premises that lead to a conclusion.)
Rowe’s evidential argument from evil is an inductive argument. It is based on the premise that evil exists and a good God cannot co-exist or be God in a world where evil exists for a good God would not permit or allow evil.[footnoteRef:3] This could be written in syllogism form from a deductive standpoint as well. The major premise of the argument could thus alternatively be: God is not evil. The minor premise would be: Evil is. The conclusion: Therefore, God is not. This is essentially the rational explanation for Rowe’s...…for why evil exists.

As for the various kinds of evil, there is natural and moral evil. The first sin of man sent a false note into the world that corrupted man’s place in nature and made him subject to nature instead of being the ruler of nature that God intended him to be in the Paradise garden. Thus, this is why we suffer natural evils today. Moral evil is the absence of God in our decisions—the loss of good. Thus, when we sin, it is a moral evil.

The reason for the amount of evil that exists today is undoubtedly related to the fact that so many are at war with God, His order, and His love. Like Lucifer, they have refused to serve Him, acknowledge Him, or accept the order of things as He has made it. They want to remake the world in their own image. They are entirely man-centered instead of God-centered, which is why so many turn to evil. They have no love for God within themselves, and evil is the outcome or expression of their souls.

The problem of particular evils or horrors is really the same old problem of pain, as Lewis calls it and it has to be interpreted in the light of faith—the story of Redemption.[footnoteRef:6] This is the history of man: the creation, the love, then the sin, the fall, the exile, the suffering and the waiting for Redemption which came via Christ. Now through faith and works every man is called to be redeemed and to embrace the cross—not use it to invalidate God’s existence and His own suffering which He took upon Himself to pay for the fall of man. [6: C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (Quebec: Samizdat University Press, 2016), 8.]…