Charles Hartshorne and the Existence of God. By Donald Wayne Viney

1987 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 304-307
Author(s):  
Leonard J. Eslick ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Existence Of God ◽  
Charles Hartshorne

Charles Hartshorne and the Existence of God

1986 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-212
Author(s):  
Eric von der Luft ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Existence Of God ◽  
Charles Hartshorne

scholarly journals The correctness and relevance of the modal ontological argument

Synthese ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrzej Biłat
Keyword(s):  
Ontological Argument ◽  
Popular Belief ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Charles Hartshorne

AbstractThis paper deals with some metaphilosophical aspects of the modal ontological argument originating from Charles Hartshorne. One of the specific premises of the argument expresses the idea that the existence of God is not contingent. Several well-known versions of the argument have been formulated that appeal to different ways of clarifying the latter. A question arises: which of the formally correct and relevant versions is proper or basic? The paper points to some criteria of formal correctness, and distinguishes two types of relevance for these versions: strong and weak. Its aim is to furnish a strictly worked out answer to the question, taking into account each of these types. As a result, a very simple, formally correct and (weakly) relevant version of the modal ontological argument is formulated. The results obtained are also used to criticize a popular belief about the relations in which the main versions of the modal ontological argument stand to one another.

scholarly journals Evil and Divine Power: A Response to James Sterba’s Argument from Evil

Religions ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 442
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Burns
Keyword(s):  
Positive Energy ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Moral Argument ◽  
Doctrine Of Double Effect ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Divine Power ◽  
Argument From Evil ◽  
Charles Hartshorne ◽  
Horrendous Evils ◽  
Trolley Cases

In this article, I offer a response to James P. Sterba’s moral argument for the non-existence of God. Sterba applies to God the so-called Pauline Principle that it is not permissible to do evil in order that good may come. He suggests that this is the underlying element in discussions of the Doctrine of Double Effect, a doctrine that has been largely overlooked by philosophers of religion. Although, as hypothetical trolley cases demonstrate, human beings sometimes cannot avoid doing or permitting evil in order to prevent a greater evil, Sterba argues that the same cannot be said of an omnipotent God and that, since our world contains horrendous evils, the existence of a God who is both omnipotent and good is therefore logically impossible. I argue that, if God is thought to be a conscious being with unlimited power to prevent horrendous evils, Sterba’s argument might be valid. I also argue, however, that divine power need not be construed in this way. Drawing on some ideas derived from the work of Charles Hartshorne, I suggest that God is not a kind of divine micromanager and that it is more coherent and, indeed, helpful to think of God as a social influencer whose power is a source of positive energy for the promotion of goodness.

Ukrainian community life of believers

2008 ◽  
pp. 110-134
Author(s):  
Pavlo Yuriyovych Pavlenko
Keyword(s):  
Religious Life ◽  
Main Task ◽  
Community Life ◽  
Religious Activity ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Religious System ◽  
Real Presence ◽  
The Status ◽  
Intimate Relations ◽  
The Individual

The cornerstone of any religion is its anthropological concept, which seeks to determine the essential orientations of man, to outline the ideological framework of its existence, to represent the idea of ​​its essence, purpose in earthly life. The main task of the religious system is the act of involving and subordinating man to the spiritual divine realm as the realm of the transcendental existence of God. Belief in the real presence of the latter implies a new understanding of oneself, which ultimately leads the religious individual to the desire to be involved in this transcendental existence, to have intimate relations with him, to have a consciousness inherent in God. Note that in this context, all human being is interpreted as a certain arena for this realization. Therefore, the religious life of the individual acquires the status of religious activity.

The Problem of Evil and Replies to Some Important Responses

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 105-131
Author(s):  
Bruce Russell
Keyword(s):  
Problem Of Evil ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Strong Argument ◽  
Parallel Argument ◽  
The Earth ◽  
The Problem Of Evil ◽  
Argument From Evil

I begin by distinguishing four different versions of the argument from evil that start from four different moral premises that in various ways link the existence of God to the absence of suffering. The version of the argument from evil that I defend starts from the premise that if God exists, he would not allow excessive, unnecessary suffering. The argument continues by denying the consequent of this conditional to conclude that God does not exist. I defend the argument against Skeptical Theists who say we are in no position to judge that there is excessive, unnecessary suffering by arguing that this defense has absurd consequences. It allows Young Earthers to construct a parallel argument that concludes that we are in no position to judge that God did not create the earth recently. In the last section I consider whether theists can turn the argument from evil on its head by arguing that God exists. I first criticize Alvin Plantinga’s theory of warrant that one might try to use to argue for God’s existence. I then criticize Richard Swinburne’s Bayesian argument to the same conclusion. I conclude that my version of the argument from evil is a strong argument against the existence of God and that several important responses to it do not defeat it.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document