A Logical Hypothesis for a Higher Power’s Plan

2020

In this paper, we aim to examine the relationships between four solutions to the dilemma of divine foreknowledge and human freedom— theological determinism, Molinism, simple foreknowledge and open theism—and divine providence and theodicy. Some of these solutions— theological determinism and Molinism, in particular—highlight God’s government of the world. Some others—simple foreknowledge and open theism—highlight human autonomy and freedom. In general, the more libertarian human freedom is highlighted, the less God’s government of the history of the world seems possible. However, the task of theodicy becomes easier because humans are fully responsible for the evil they do. Conversely, the more God’s government is highlighted, the more human freedom seems to be restricted. Moreover, God seems to be directly or indirectly responsible for evil in the world. Because of the trade–off between control and freedom, each solution finds itself at ease with some problems, while on other fronts...

Religious Studies, 2010

Abstract: This paper develops a challenge to theism. The challenge is to explain why the hypothesis that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient and all-good god should be considered significantly more reasonable than the hypothesis that there exists an ...

Is the universe ultimately meaningful, ordered to an end of transcendental value? Knowing God: The Ultimate Meaningfulness of the Universe argues that mathematical physics, because it describes rather than explaining, is radically incapable of answering this question. The book argues for a new research paradigm which, while incorporating and building on the description of the universe supplied by mathematical physics, goes beyond it, restoring teleological explanation.

Quiblibet, 2000

The existence of pain and suffering is a source of profound anxiety to all reflective people of faith, for how do we sustain theistic belief in the face of the world's evils? Despite centuries of theological and philosophical reflection, a theodicy of adequate explanatory power has yet to be formulated. The theodicies which have been advanced have failed, in large part, due to their metaphysical deficiencies, including inadequate cosmologies, anthropologies, and descriptions of divine attributes. In this paper, I develop a theodicy that more faithfully reflects what we now know about humanity and the universe. I argue that both moral and natural evil can only be understood in the context of a God who creates evolutively. I first outline a theology of evolution based on a critical realistic appraisal of humanity's experiences of both the material world and the numinous. I make the case that a coherent theology must be true to both the evolutionary origins of humanity as well as to humanity's ubiquitous religious experiences. The development of this theodicy is a prerequisite to the overall theodicy project of this paper. Here, I consider as separate topics: (1) moral evil and the possibility of free will and (2) natural evil and divine action. Concerning the former, I argue against causal determinism in favor of true free will for humans and maintain that moral evil results from authentic choices of humans to do evil. For the latter, the logical problem of natural evil is readily dispatched by evolutionary arguments in which it is seen that a world in process is bound to cause harm to its evolving inhabitants. The existential problem of natural evil is less readily solved since it is unclear why a God who acts in history does not do so more often to help us. Here, we analyze the categories of divine activity in the world and discover that the solution to the existential problem of evil lies in right expectation. In the end, we see that evil has its origin in freedom. Out of love, God gives humanity freedom of choice and nature freedom of process.

The death of God and his divine plan has created a void in humanity, what is the meaning of life if there is no being to provide it to us. In this paper I discuss the problem of life with no meaning, and outline alternative sources for meaning in human life.

Edukacja Filozoficzna, 2020

Edward Nieznański developed two logical systems to deal with the problem of evil and to refute religious determinism. However, when formalized in first-order modal logic, two axioms of each system contradict one another, revealing that there is an underlying minimal set of axioms enough to settle the questions. In this article, we develop this minimal system, called N3, which is based on Nieznański’s contribution. The purpose of N3 is to solve the logical problem of evil through the defeat of a version of religious determinism. On the one hand, these questions are also addressed by Nieznański’s systems, but, on the other hand, they are obtained in N3 with fewer assumptions. Our approach can be considered a case of logic of religion, that is, of logic applied to religious discourse, as proposed by Józef Maria Bocheński; in this particular case, it is a discourse in theodicy, which is situated in the context of the philosophy of religion. Key words: logical problem of evil, theodicy, first-order modal logic, logic of religion, Edward Nieznański

public talk, 1974

This text explores the concept of the Supreme Deity, examining its presence in the universe and within humanity. It draws from various sources, including the Bible, poetry, philosophy, and theosophy, to describe the Deity as an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving force. The text emphasizes the interconnectedness of the Deity with the universe and humanity, highlighting the importance of silent contemplation and self-realization in understanding and experiencing this divine presence. Theosophy teaches that the universe is a manifestation of a supreme deity, and that this divine intelligence is present in all of nature and within each individual. This divine presence within humans allows them to tap into universal power, wisdom, and intelligence, enabling them to serve others effectively. Theosophy emphasizes the interconnectedness of all beings and the importance of serving humanity and the natural world.

The preliminary version of the 15th volume of God Theory: The Case for Supernaturalist Theism, by Z. E. Kendall, includes preliminary bibliography, recommended references, and glossary sections, giving scholars and other readers an idea of what the God Theory multi-volume-set project is going to be like. The stand-alone title for the 15th volume of God Theory is The Bibliographic God.

Heythrop Journal, 2020

Several authors have maintained that every argument in support of God, indeed everything that a theist claims about God, can be reversed and used in support of an evil god. The most salient example is the alleged symmetry between theodicies and reverse theodicies: God gave us free will to promote good, evil god gave us free will to promote evil; God allows evil for soul making, evil god allows good for soul destruction; our suffering is compensated for by the eternal bliss in the afterlife, our happiness is compensated for by the eternal damnation in the afterlife. Considering such symmetries, it is argued that there is no reason to think that the existence of God is more plausible than the existence of an evil god. The foregoing reasoning is known as the evil god challenge. The challenge is to explain why the God hypothesis should be considerably more reasonable than the evil god hypothesis. In this paper, I take up the challenge on behalf of theism. I indicate damaging asymmetries between an evil god and a good god, and between theodicies and reverse theodicies, showing that the existence of a good god is considerably more plausible than the existence of an evil god.

The tension between the ideas of determinism as opposed to free will is fully discussed. Evidence for the existence of God based on what is called the ultimate causation principle is put forward. The concept of infinity is explored. Finally, a test called the free will test instead of the Turing test for Artificial Intelligence (AI) is proposed. The idea of multiverses is considered based on the reasoning here presented. Also, the uncertainty principle as being the one that allows free will to occur in an otherwise discrete and finite universe, making continuity-ness the nature of free will is introduced. Finally, the practical reason for the existence of a belief in God is explored.