Arguments Concerning God

 

 

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."         --Buddha

 

 

Pascal’s Wager

 

 

Blaise Pascal, a 17th century mathematician, argued as follows:

 

1.  Either I can believe in God (and act accordingly) or I can choose not to.

 

2.  If I believe in God, and God exists, then my reward will be infinite (heaven).

 

3.  If I believe in God, and God does not exist, then there will be a small cost (waste of time going to church, etc.).

 

4.  On the other hand, if I don’t believe in God, but God exists, then my punishment will be infinite (hell).

 

5.  And if I don’t believe in God, and God doesn’t exist, then there will only be a small benefit (not wasting my time going to church, etc.).

 

6.  Therefore, I am infinitely better off if I believe in God.  I would be a fool not to believe.

 

 

 

 

 

God exists

God does not exist

I believe

Go To Heaven

+ ¥

small cost

- x (finite)

I do not believe

Burn In Hell!

- ¥

small benefit

+ y (finite)

 

 

Utility of believing =            (¥ - x) / 2    =       ¥

 

Utility of not believing =               (-¥ + y) / 2 =       -¥

 

 

 

Questions for discussion

 

Does the argument give us an epistemic reason to believe in God?

 

What reason do we have for believing that God would send us to heaven or hell depending on whether we believe in God or not?  How do we know that God wouldn’t do exactly the opposite, or not send us anywhere?

 

 

 

Faith and Reason

 

 

Reason:    Believing in something on the basis of evidence.

 

In other words, you believe something because you have reason to think it is true.

 

 

Faith:         Believing in something because you think it is important for you to believe it, regardless of whether the belief is supported by evidence.

 

The belief could be important for your psychological health, you might think the belief is necessary in order to live an ethical life, or it might be important for some other (non-epistemic) reason.

 

 

 

What Do People Believe?

 

According to public opinion polls, the vast majority of Americans (in excess of 90%) report that they believe in God, although significantly fewer say they are “certain” that God exists.  The percentage is much lower in some parts of the world (it is about 45% in Germany, for example), but it is fair to say that a majority of people in the world believe in a God of some kind.

 

 

Question:  Do people have (epistemic) reason to believe in God?

 

 

 

 

 

Defining God

 

Pantheism:

 

                   God = The Universe

 

It’s a pretty safe bet that the universe exists, so pantheists aren’t going out on a limb by proclaiming the existence of God.  In fact, pantheism really just amounts to giving a different name to the universe.

 

Popular descriptions of God:

 

                   All powerful (omnipotent)

 

                   All knowing (omniscient)

 

                   All good (benevolent)

 

                   Creator of the universe

 

                  

                             Also:

                                      The Greatest Being

 

                                      The Perfect Being

 

 

God as Creator is the most common and most important description.

 

 

 

Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents*

*from Adherents.com

 

(Sizes shown are approximate estimates, and are here mainly for the purpose of ordering the groups, not providing a definitive number. This list is sociological/statistical in perspective.)

 

1.    Christianity: 2 billion

2.    Islam: 1.3 billion

3.    Hinduism: 900 million

4.    Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 850 million

5.    Buddhism: 360 million

6.    Chinese traditional religion: 225 million

7.    primal-indigenous: 150 million

8.    African Traditional & Diasporic: 95 million

9.    Sikhism: 23 million

10.                       Juche: 19 million

11.                       Spiritism: 14 million

12.                       Judaism: 14 million

13.                       Baha'i: 6 million

 

 

 

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, as well as many “minor” religions believe in a personal God who created the universe.  (“Personal” means “personlike”…God is said to have a mind, to take deliberate actions, and have other properties common to persons).  Over 50% of the people on planet earth subscribe to one of these religions.  A personal God, while not necessarily omnipotent and omniscient, would certainly have to be very powerful and knowledgeable to be up to the task of creating the universe.  Typically, a personal God is believed to be morally good as well.  Of course, not all adherents of these major religions conceives of God in exactly the same way…a certain amount of variety is to be expected.

 

Hindus and Buddhists (which together comprise about 20% of humanity) typically do not believe in a personal God.  According to Hinduism, God is something called “Brahman”, which is difficult to describe or comprehend.  Brahman is fundamental to the nature of reality….a universal soul, or force that pervades everything and of which each persons’ soul is related (all souls are eventually reunited in Brahman, after many reincarnations).  The Hindu conception of God is probably what inspired George Lucas to invent “The Force”, the deity like energy that is featured in the Star Wars movies.  Brahman has three major aspects:  Brahma (The Creator), Vishnu (The Preserver), Shiva (The Destroyer).  (In the Star Wars fiction, the Jedi are preservers, while the Sith are destroyers).  Hinduism does feature Brahma, the creator aspect, which does fit one of the major descriptions of God described above.  However, the arguments discussed below are of very limited to relevance to Hinduism, let alone Buddhism (which I won’t attempt to describe at all).

 

 

The Design Argument(s)

 

 

 

The Wonders of Nature.  Nature contains many wonders:  Specifically, things that have many intricate parts which work together in order to achieve various effects.  The effects would not be achieved were any of the intricate parts to fail or if conditions were altered.

 

          Examples--

 

                   The human eye

 

                   Other organs, plants and animals

 

                   Ecosystems (both macro and micro)

 

                   The planet earth itself, and its ability to sustain life

 

                   The solar system

 

 

The Not-by-Chance Argument (PP, page 13)

 

(1)  Either the wonders of nature occurred randomly, by chance, or they are the product of intelligent design.

 

(2)  They could not have occurred by chance.

 

(3)  Therefore, they are the product of intelligent design.

 

 

 

The Same-Evidence Argument (PP, page 14)

 

(1) We rightfully conclude that objects such as watches are made by intelligent designers because they have parts that work together to serve a purpose.

 

(2)  We have the same evidence that the universe was made by an intelligent designer:  The universe is also composed of parts that work together to serve a purpose.

 

(3)  Therefore, we are entitled to conclude that the universe was made by an intelligent designer.

 

 

Some (leading) Questions for discussion

 

Assume that the arguments are sound.  What can we conclude about the designer?  (Can we conclude that the designer is omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, perfect, etc.?)  Can we conclude that there is one designer?

 

Regarding the Same-Evidence Argument:  Do we really have the same evidence regarding the origin of a watch and the origin of the universe?  Are there some relevant differences between the two cases?

 

Regarding the Not-by-Chance Argument:  Does the first premise present all of the plausible alternatives, or have one or more been left out?

 

 

 

Darwin’s argument that evolution accounts for speciation and adaptation

 

(1)  Organisms reproduce at a geometric rate.  This cannot be sustained indefinitely, so each population eventually reaches a maximum size.

 

(2)  It follows that a high percentage of organisms must die before they are able to reproduce.

 

(3)  There are two factors that determine which organisms live to reproduce, and which do not:

 

          (i) Random chance (some are just unlucky)

 

          (ii) Traits with differential fitness (some have traits that make survival more likely)

 

(4)  Organisms pass on their traits to their descendants.

 

(5)  Therefore, the traits that have more survival value are more likely to be passed on and widely represented in future generations, while other traits tend to be eliminated from the species.

 

(6)  Over time, a species will be modified.  When enough of these modifications have accumulated, we call the result a new species.

 

(7)  The fact that every species has evolved through natural selection explains why they are well-adapted to their environments.

 

 

3 conditions for Natural Selection in a reproducing population

 

1.  Variety of traits

 

2.  Differential Fitness of traits

 

3.  Heritability of traits

 

Add (limited) mutation as a mechanism for causing new variety, and you get evolution

 

 

 

The Theory of Evolution is not an attack on Religion

 

 

·  The theory of evolution is not an argument against the existence of God.

 

·  But it does undermine one of the main arguments for God (the Design Argument).

 

·  The theory of evolution is compatible with the existence of God, but it is not compatible with the claim that the existence and adaptation of species is due directly to God’s design.

 

 

 

Objections to Evolution as an explanation of the origin of species

 

Objection 1.  Evolution by natural selection cannot account for complex structures, such as the eye.  The reason is that in order for an organ to evolve, the bundle of traits that make it up must be advantageous at every stage—otherwise, they would not be selected for and would be eliminated.  But there is no use for half an eye, or an eye missing any vital part.  Therefore, it would have to evolve all at once, which is impossible (mutation doesn’t work that way).

 

Reply, part 1:  Rachels, p. 20:  “A bit of anatomy may originally be preserved by natural selection because it serves a different adaptive purpose than the one it eventually comes to serve”.  (See Stephen J. Gould, “The Panda’s Thumb”)

 

Reply, part 2:  The intensification of function.  An eye does not evolve from half an eye, it evolves from a more primitive eye.  Rachels, p. 21:  “All we have to imagine is that a nerve only slightly sensitive to light confers on an organism some small advantage in the competition for survival.  Then we can understand the establishment of the first rudimentary eye.”

 

Reading recommendation (not an assignment for the class):  Anything by Richard Dawkins, especially The Blind Watchmaker.

 

Objection 2.  Even if evolution were to account for speciation and the formation of complex structures, it doesn’t explain where life came from in the first place.  There must have been some species to start with in order for natural selection to work.

 

Reply, part 1:  Natural selection can work on things other than organisms.  All that is required is that there be a population of replicators (things that make copies of themselves) with some source of variation in (heritable) traits that effect the likelihood of successful replication.  Once such things exist, they can naturally evolve to become increasingly complex (although only some offshoots will actually do this…it is important to realize that most life on earth is relatively simple and microscopic).  Thus, the problem is reduced to the question of where the original replicators came from.

 

Reply, part 2:  It’s true that the theory of evolution cannot explain where the first replicators came from…a different theory is needed for that.  Most scientists believe that the first replicators were RNA molecules (or perhaps something simpler) that arose naturally in the oceans of primordial earth within the first billion years of the planet’s existence.  Research into exactly how this happened is still at an early stage, but there has been progress.  Here is a good (if somewhat technical) paper that sums it up:

 THE ORIGIN OF LIFE ON THE EARTH.

 

 

Objection 3.  Evolution does not explain why there is a planet suitable for life in the first place.  If any one of a large number of conditions on earth were changed, life could not have evolved.  It is hard to believe this could have happened by sheer chance.

 

Reply:  If you were to pick a planet in the universe at random, the likelihood of that planet having life is very, very small.  But given that there are billions and billions of planets in the universe, it is very likely that at least some of them would have the conditions necessary for life.  Earth just happens to be one of them.  Compare:  from the fact that winning the lottery is very unlikely, it doesn’t follow that no one ever wins the lottery.

 

 

Cosmological Arguments

 

 

The First Cause Argument (PP, page 23)

 

(1)     Everything that exists must have a cause.

 

(2)     The chain of causes cannot reach back indefinitely.  At some point, we must come to a First Cause.

 

(3)     The First Cause we may call God.

 

 

 

Problem:  The argument is self-contradictory.  It says that everything has a cause, but then says that there must be a First Cause (something that has no cause).

 

Another problem:  Suppose that premise 1 is false, and that there is a First Cause.  Why should we call this God?  How do we know that it has any of the features commonly attributed to God?  For all that the argument says, it could be the Big Bang.

 

 

God as Explanation of the Universe

 

(1)  Everything that exists within the universe is part of a vast system of causes and effects.

 

(2)  But the universe itself requires an explanation—why does it exist?

 

(3)  The only plausible explanation is that the cause of the universe is God.

 

(4)  Therefore, to explain the existence of the universe, it is reasonable to believe in God.

 

 

Questions

 

What can we conclude about the nature of “God”, other than that “God” is the reason the universe exists?  (Can we be sure that God is omnipotent, benevolent, etc.?)

 

If the universe requires an explanation, then why doesn’t God also require an explanation?  On the other hand,, if God doesn’t require an explanation, then why insist that the universe does?

 

 

 

How Does God Create the Universe, Anyway?

 

 

If God is to be an explanation of the existence of the universe, then we must have some idea of how God and the Universe are related (or else there is really no explanation being offered).  So, here are some possibilities:

 

A.  God Is the Universe (pantheism)

         

In that case, God is not:

          (i) a being with thoughts or feelings

          (ii) the creator

          (iii) omniscient or omnipotent

          (iv) benevolent

 

In short, there is no God.  This is really a form of atheism.

 

B.  God Created the Universe

 

The idea is that God created the universe much in the way that people create things.  That is, God came up with a plan for the universe, then went ahead and made it.

 

But how is this possible?

 

 

God Does Not Exist In The Universe

 

1.  The Creator (God) is either in the universe or it isn’t.

 

2.  If the Creator is in the universe, then it must have created itself (since it created the whole universe).

 

3.  In general, if A and B are things in the universe, and A created B, then A must have existed before B existed.

 

4.  Therefore, if A created itself, then A must have existed before A existed.

 

5.  But nothing can exist before it exists!  (Because it would have to exist and not exist at the same time)

 

6.  Therefore, it is impossible that the Creator is in the universe.

 

 

Modern physics conceives of the universe as an object of (at least) four dimensions, one of which is time.  The four (or more) dimensional whole is referred to as “spacetime”.  One consequence of this is that there was literally no time before the universe existed.  Since the universe includes all of time and space (by definition), it doesn’t even make sense to talk about times or places outside of the universe.

 

Where is God, if not in spacetime?

 

 

Not really a fair question, since the word ‘where’ presupposes a spacetime location.  But some will find it tempting to suggest that nothing could exist that is not in spacetime.  For now, we will simply reject this suggestion as question-begging, and grant that non-spatiotemporal existence is at least possible.

 

 

But if God is not in spacetime, then how does God create the universe?

 

By definition, nothing exists before the universe, so God couldn’t create the universe as we normally conceive of creation.  (For the same reason, God couldn’t “cause” the universe to exist, in the usual sense of ‘cause’).

 

Moreover, since God is not a temporal being, God could not have thought processes or make plans (whatever thoughts or plans that God has would have to exist eternally, all at once)

 

 So,

 

If God didn’t create the universe (in ordinary sense of the word ‘create’), then in what way is the existence of the universe explained by God?

 

 

C:  God Necessitated the Universe.

 

In other words, the existence of God is a sufficient condition for the existence of the universe.  If God exists, then the universe has to exist as well.

 

Isn’t this the same as saying that God created or caused the universe?? 

 

NO, because the relationship is logical, not temporal.

 

Examples of sufficiency without causation: 

 

The existence of mountains is sufficient (and necessary) for the existence of valleys. 

But the mountains do not exist before the valleys, they come about simultaneously.

 

The existence of the numbers two and three is sufficient (and necessary) for the existence of the number five. 

Again, one does not cause or create the other.

 

But what is it about the nature of God that would guarantee the existence of the universe?

 

One theory:  God is a maximal being, and as such, guarantees the existence of all possible things, including our universe.

 

This suggests that there are infinitely many different universes, all existing in different spatiotemporal realms.   This may not be a bad consequence, though.  Some philosophers and physicists have reached the same conclusion on independent grounds.

 

One drawback to this is that it is hard to reconcile with the idea that God is good, because a maximal being would necessitate the existence of all kinds of evil, as well as good.  It seems to go more smoothly with the idea that God is nonmoral (morally neutral).

 

 

Another theory:  God is benevolent, and so necessitates the existence of the best of all possible worlds (our universe).

 

Problem:  This doesn’t seem to be the best of all possible worlds. 

(We will return to this issue in our discussion of The Problem of Evil).

 

 

 

 

Ontological Arguments

 

 

“Ontological” arguments are attempts to prove the existence of God from the concept of God.  The most famous of these was given by Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109).

 

 

 

Anselm's Argument for God's Existence

 

 

1.      We understand the concept of God: that than which nothing greater can be thought.

 

2.      Therefore, that than which nothing greater can be thought exists as a concept.

 

3.      If something exists merely as a concept, then it is not as great as were it to exist in reality.

 

4.      If (a) that than which nothing greater can be thought  does not exist in reality, then (b) something greater than it can be thought.

 

5.      (b) is false  (because it implies a contradiction)

 

6.      Therefore, (a) is false.  [Modus Tollens 4,5]

 

7.      In other words, that than which nothing greater can be thought does exist in reality (God exists in reality).

 

 

 

Does the Ontological Argument Prove Too Much?

 

 

Gaunilo's Parody of Anselm's Argument

 

 

1.      We understand the concept of Islandia: the island than which none greater can be thought. [P]

 

2.      Therefore, the island than which none greater can be thought exists as a concept.

 

3.      If something exists merely as a concept, then it is not as great as were it to exist in reality.

 

4.      If (a) the island than which none greater can be thought does not exist in reality, then (b) an island greater than it can be thought.

 

5.      (b) is false  (because it implies a contradiction)

 

6.      Therefore, (a) is false.  [Modus Tollens 4,5]

 

7.      In other words, the island than which none greater can be thought does exist in reality (Islandia exists in reality).

 

 

Also try:

 

          The unicorn than which none greater can be thought

          The pile of diamonds than which none greater can be thought

          The living dinosaur than which none greater can be thought

          Etc.

 

Where does the argument go wrong?

 

Premise 1 is suspect:  Can we be sure that we understand the concept?  Perhaps it contains a hidden contradiction.  (E.g.  “the greatest number”)

 

 

Premise 2.  Here is the big problem.

 

The concept of God exists             ¹       God exists as a concept

 

 

If the concept of X exists, this does not mean that X exists as a concept.  That would mean that X really exists, but in some special, conceptual way.

 

 

The word ‘concept’ is ambiguous.  The “concept of X” can refer to either:

 

          A.  A mental representation of X (something that exists in the mind)

 

          B.  The property of being X (what Plato would call the Form of X)

 

 

In neither case does the “concept of X” refer to X itself, existing in some special way.

 

Consider: 

 

1.  If an 800 pound gorilla exists, then it weighs 800 pounds.

2.  Therefore, if an 800 pound gorilla exists “as a concept”, then the concept weighs 800 pounds.

3.  But concepts don’t weigh anything.

4.  Therefore, an 800 pound gorilla doesn’t exist “as a concept”.

 

 

Why ontological Arguments are confusing

 

 

Let’s start with something familiar:

 

          The concept of being a bachelor implies being unmarried.

 

But this just means:

 

          If something has the property of being a bachelor (in other words, if something is a bachelor), then it is unmarried.

 

 

 

With this in mind, consider the following claim:

 

 

The concept of God implies that God exists.

 

 

But this just means:

 

If something has the property of being God (in other words, if something is God), then it exists.

 

 

Compare:

 

The property of being a banana entails existence.

 

OR

 

If something is a banana, then it exists.

 

 

These are equivalent to saying: 

 

If something is a banana, then it is a banana. 

 

It doesn’t follow that any bananas actually exist.

 

 

 

The property of being a unicorn entails existence. 

 

True! (Even though no unicorns actually exist)

 

 

For any kind of thing whatsoever, something couldn’t be that type of thing unless it existed.

 

So, it is important not to confuse the following two claims:

 

(i)  The property of being God entails existence.

 

(ii)  If the property of being God exists, then God exists.

 

 

(i) is obviously true, once we understand what it means.  To be successful, an ontological argument needs to prove (ii).

 

It comes down to this.  There are many properties that have no instances (being a unicorn, being a planet made entirely of rubber, being Superman, etc.) 

 

At first glance, it seems that being God could be one of these properties.  In other words, there could be the property of being God (the concept of God) even though God doesn’t exist.

 

An ontological argument is supposed to prove otherwise—that being God necessarily has an instance (God).

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Problem of Evil

 

Assume that:

 

1.  God exists.

2.  God is all-knowing.

3.  God is all-powerful.

4.  God is all-good.

BUT:

5.  Nothing bad would exist, if there were someone who knew about it, could do something about it, and was entirely opposed to what is bad.

IT FOLLOWS THAT:

6.  Nothing bad exists.

7.  But:  Bad things do exist.

 

CONTRADICTION!

______________________________________________

SO:  Either God is not all-knowing, or God is not all-powerful, God is not all-good, or God does not exist at all.

 

 

 

Is evil an illusion?  Perhaps things that seem bad are really not; perhaps they are all part of God’s perfect plan that we mere mortals cannot comprehend.  (Objection to premise 7)

 

BUT:  If we are so radically mistaken about which things are bad (e.g. genocide, torture, children dying of cancer) then all of our value judgments are thrown into doubt.  If we are incapable of being able to tell when something is bad, then it is reasonable to suspect that we are also incapable of being able to tell when something is good.  What basis would we have for believing that anything (including God) is good?  For that matter, how do we know right from wrong?

 

 

Okay, maybe evil does exist, but God has a good reason for permitting evil.  We may never know what that reason is, because we don’t know God’s plan and we can’t fully comprehend the mind of God.  (This is an objection to premise 5)

 

Let’s grant that it is possible that God would permit evil, because God might have some (unspecified) good reason for doing so.  If we grant this, then we are rejecting premise 5.  That is enough to solve the logical Problem of Evil—God and evil are logically compatible, at least as far as we know.

 

But just because something is possible doesn’t make it true, or even likely.  It is possible that one of you will be struck by lightning tomorrow, but it’s very improbable.  Likewise, it is possible that God has a good reason to permit evil, but on the face of it, it seems doubtful.  Unless some explanation is forthcoming, the Problem of Evil is evidence against the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God.

 

 

 

 

 

Theodicy:  “Justifying the ways of God to Man”

 

 

Some Leading Ideas:

 

 

The Idea that Pain Is Necessary a Part of the Body’s Warning System

 

Problems:  Useless (and gratuitous) pains, like the pain of throat cancer that one is helpless to do anything about.  Harms that don’t cause pain, like carbon monoxide poisoning.

 

 

 

 

The Idea that Good Could Not Exist Without Evil

 

Perhaps in a world without evil, people would not know what evil is, and maybe they wouldn’t know the difference between good and evil.

 

But that doesn’t mean that it would be a world without good:  in general, the fact that you don’t know the difference between A and B doesn’t imply that there is no difference, nor does it imply that neither exists.  For example, there could be a world where nothing is white.  No one would know what white is, but things could still be black, and blue, and other colors.  Is good and evil different somehow?

 

 

 

 

The Idea that Evil Is Necessary So That We May Better Appreciate the Good

 

 

Problem:  There is way more evil than would be necessary for achieving an appreciation of the good (isn’t there?)

 

Also:  Wouldn’t it have been nicer just to make humans so that they naturally appreciate the good, without having to experience terrible forms of evil first?

 

 

 

 

The Idea that Evil Is Punishment for Wrongdoing

 

Problem:  People are “punished” more or less at random, and usually not in proportion to the amount of wrong they have done.

 

Think about this in relation to:  Childhood diseases, genocide, innocent victims of torture, rape, etc.  Earthquakes, tsunamis…

 

 

 

 

Some More (and better) Ideas:

 

 

The Idea That Evil Is the Result of Human Free Will

 

 

Which world is better?

 

(a)  A world without humans in it, which would not contain any of the bad things people do; but neither would it contain any of the results of human consciousness, creativity, and virtue.

 

(b)  A world with humans in it, which would include human wickedness but also the good things that humanity brings with it.

 

 

If you said, “(b)”, then you have agreed to a partial answer to the Problem of Evil.

 

 

If finite, imperfect creatures are given free will (the ability to make their own choices), some of their choices are bound to be bad.

 

Isn’t it better to have a world in which we can be free and make mistakes, rather than a world in which we can’t commit evil but lack freedom?

 

However, even if human evil were a result of free will, this wouldn’t get God off the hook, because there is still natural evil.  There are plenty of bad things (e.g. diseases, natural disasters) that are not the result of free will.  This brings us to

 

 

 

The Idea That Evil Is Necessary for the Development of Moral Character

 

 

Evil gets us off our duffs and motivates us to improve ourselves and our world.  Without problems to overcome, we become slugs and our lives are not worthwhile (even though we may experience lots of pleasure).  The presence of evil forces us to develop moral character, which is valuable in its own right.  It also inspires us to take on worthwhile projects (such as the creation of new technology) that would never have occurred to us otherwise.

 

Problem:  “there is far more evil than is necessary for [developing moral character]:  There is stunning, overpowering evil that crushes the life out of people.  If we already have AIDS, muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, and spina bifida, why do we need Ebola as well?  If the people of Guatemala are already poor and hungry, why do they need an earthquake on top of it?” (Problems from Philosophy, p. 39)

 

 

Could God Have Done Better?

 

One response to the Problem of Evil is to concede that the world contains many bad things, but maintain that all of the other possible worlds are even worse.  That is, God created the best possible world of the alternatives available.  A variant on this response is to claim that there was just one possible world –this one—and God decided to create it because it was better than nothing.

 

          But it is hard to believe that there weren’t any better alternatives.

 

 

          Isn’t it??

 

 

Of course, depending on what you think happens to us when we die, evil may or may not seem like a pressing problem.  If you think that we go to heaven, then the evil on earth doesn’t seem nearly as bad as it would be otherwise.  It is just a temporary blip or “aberration in human history” (as Peter van Inwagen put it).  But is there any (epistemic) reason to believe in heaven?