-You may choose one of the three questions. Question 1,2, or 3.
-you may use any style: MLA, APA. and you may use as many sources as you need.
-This is the platform where
you get to exercise your logical acumen and thinking abilities on
one of the oldest substantive questions. Reading materials are
attached; they are selected for readability and
manageability; but you don’t have to confine yourself to them, as
you may look into any other materials deemed as relevant.
-You must employ at least one careful “Reconstruction” of an argument in your writing. (Reconstruction refers to a precise restatement of an argument, where the conclusion and the premises are clearly articulated.)
Question 1 below, is directly related to the the film Shadowlands (1993) by William Nicholson.
Question 1: Is the so-call “Problem of Evil” strong enough to
dismantle the theistic view of the world? Is any of
“theodicies” convincing enough to uphold it?
Reading A…St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, Q.2,
esp., 3rd Article, Obj. 1 (p.5) & Reply (p.7)
Reading B…Zagzebski, “The Problem of Evil”
For those who might be more interested in rather positive
arguments for the Existence of God, as opposed to the above
defensive apologetic argument, here are two other alternatives:
Question 2: Is the Cosmological Argument “sound”? If so, how?
If not, why not?
Reading A…St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, (the same one)
esp., “5 Ways” (pp. 5-6)
Reading C…Moreland, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument”
Question 3: Is the Teleological Argument “sound”? Is it
augmented by modern sciences, especially
“Anthropic” principle?
Reading D…Paley, “Natural Theology”
Reading E…Schlesinger, “Corroboration from Contemporary
Astrophysics…”
It could be either (1) your own conclusive thought or (2) your
own critical examination of others’ arguments, or even a mixture
of both. In any event, the key is to be as logically clear as one
can be, and as argumentative as one can be. You must employ at least one careful “Reconstruction” of an argument in your writing. (Reconstruction refers to a precise
restatement of an argument, where the conclusion and the premises
are clearly articulated.)
