God meets Satan’s Apple: the paradox of creation

Rubio, Daniel

doi:10.1007/s11098-017-0991-5

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…)Since it is assumed that God's existence is incompatible with gratuitous evil—evil for which there is no God-justifying good—it follows that, probably, God does not exist. (While this assumption is common and will be taken for granted in this article, a growing number of philosophers reject it [e.g., Hasker 2008; Rubio 2018; Mooney, 2019; Sullivan 2013; and van Inwagen 2006]. ) Skeptical theists reject the inference from premise (1) to (2): they claim that our (supposed) lack of knowledge of a God-justifying good does not render it probable that there is no such good, and hence this version of the argument from evil fails.…”

Section: Skeptical Theism and Arguments From Evilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Skeptical Theism Proved

Hendricks

2020

J. of the Am. Philos. Assoc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Skeptical theism is a popular response to arguments from evil. Many hold that it undermines a key inference often used by such arguments. However, the case for skeptical theism is often kept at an intuitive level: no one has offered an explicit argument for the truth of skeptical theism. In this article, I aim to remedy this situation: I construct an explicit, rigorous argument for the truth of skeptical theism.

show abstract

Section: Skeptical Theism and Arguments From Evilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Skeptical Theism Proved

Hendricks

2020

J. of the Am. Philos. Assoc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since Oedipus had been fated to commit the offences, he could not do anything else. In Oedipus Rex the world is rather fateful (Rubio, 2018), but the characters in Macbeth are backed by their own judgments. Oedipus does all he can to escape his fate but fails, whereas Shakespearean heroes Macbeth and Hamlet carry their fate by ignoring the truth that nothing important depends on their own characters.…”

Section: Uniqueness In the Role Of Fate In Greek And Shakespearean Tragediesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of Fate in Shakespearean and Classical Greek Tragedies: A Comparison

Chowdhury

2020

AJP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fate is regarded as a central component in tragedy. The significant role of fate is recognized when, despite a character's heroic acts and good intentions, they face death simply because they are doomed to die. But studies confirm that fate does not play a similarly critical role in the tragic denouement of each play. This paper attempts a critical comparison on the role and nature of fate in the downfall of protagonists in the classical Greek and Shakespearean tragedies. By reviewing research-based articles and books, and by reading through selected texts in reader-response approach, this paper attempts to identify the entirely different natures of fate that came into play for the tragic heroes’ downfall as portrayed in these two different ages. The findings manifest that the force behind the collapse of the heroes in the classical Greek tragedies was predominantly fate where the hero had little to do but to become a pawn in the hands of external forces beyond his control, while the force behind the tragic events is not external in the Shakespearean tragedies. Rather, the heroes themselves were, on the whole, responsible for their tragic downfalls due to their internal triggers.

show abstract

“…20.Tucker rightly notes that this is a minority view, but it nevertheless has able defenders. See, for example, Sorenson (1994; 2006) and Rubio (2018). …”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is motivated submaximization good enough for God?

Kraay

2019

Rel. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recent article (Kraay 2013), I argued that some prominent responses to two important arguments for atheism invoke divine satisficing – and that the coherence and propriety of this notion have not been established. Chris Tucker (2016) agrees with my evaluation of divine satisficing, but disagrees with my exegesis of these responses. He argues that they should be understood as invoking motivated submaximization instead. After reviewing the dialectical situation to date, I assess whether motivated submaximization can be deployed in such a way as to defeat these arguments for atheism. I argue that it's far from clear that it can.

show abstract

God meets Satan’s Apple: the paradox of creation

Abstract: PENULTIMATE DRAFT. PLEASE CITE PUBLISHED VERSION IN PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES." [B]ut to put compulsion on the gods against their will -no man can do that." -Sophocles, Oedipus Rex

Cited by 14 publications

References 13 publications

Skeptical Theism Proved

Skeptical Theism Proved

Treatment of Fate in Shakespearean and Classical Greek Tragedies: A Comparison

Is motivated submaximization good enough for God?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About