These are 2 separate questions., so it should be 2 separate answers. Each answer must be at least 100 words
1. Consider the logical problem of evil as presented here:
Is this a sound argument? If not, which premise would you reject and why? Explain and discuss with your peers. (Remember, it is not enough to simply disagree with the conclusion. If you disagree with the conclusion, you have to explain which premise is false OR how the premises do not guarantee the conclusion.)
2. Blaise Pascal, William James, and various “Reformed epistemologists” all maintain, in one way or another, that there are good nonevidential reasons to believe in God. Think about specific people in your own life who believe in God. There is no need to name names or otherwise identify who it is you are thinking about. If you were to ask those people why they believe in God, what kind of answers do you suspect you would get? Are they evidential reasons or nonevidential reasons? Are those people completely irrational for believing what they believe? Why or why not? (NOTE: Try to look at these beliefs objectively. Regardless of your own beliefs, think about the answers to these questions from the mindset of someone that thinks differently from you.)

WhatsApp us