Rad Miksa

The multiverse is often invoked by naturalists to avoid a design inference from the fine-tuning of the universe. I argue that positing that we live in a naturalistic multiverse (NM) makes it plausible that we currently exist in a problematic skeptical scenario, though the exact probability that we do is inscrutable. This, in turn, makes agnosticism the rational position to hold concerning the reliability of our reasoning skills, the accuracy of our sensory inputs, and the veracity of our memories. And that means that agnosticism is also the rational position to hold concerning all the beliefs derived from those sources, which includes nearly all of them. Consequently, there is an unacceptable skeptical cost to accepting a NM, thereby requiring a rejection of the NM as a counter to fine-tuning or a rejection of naturalism itself.

I argue that hindsight can counter the evidential problem of evil (EPOE). Specifically, if hindsight shows that an incident of evil that was previously accepted as pointless is actually justified, and the incident is a representative example of seemingly pointless evil, then that generates skepticism about the genuine pointlessness of other cases of seemingly pointless evil. Boethius’s life is used to illustrate this argument. Objections are then addressed, and it is shown that the reasoning behind those objections actually supports skeptical theism, thus undermining the EPOE regardless. Finally, a stronger hindsight argument is presented to comprehensively defeat the EPOE.

Structured analytic techniques (SATs) are a commonly accepted tradecraft tool for intelligence analysts. A problem, however, is that a plethora of such techniques exist and the training on them is often less than ideal. This hinders their use and undermines their perceived value. To counter these concerns, this article proposes the use of an integrated SAT called ‘Assessment Tabling’, an easy to understand/use SAT that incorporates multiple other SATs within itself. The article explicates this technique and articulates its advantages: specifically, its use of both intuitive and deliberative analytic reasoning, and its comprehensiveness, making it an ideal SAT for analysts.

The argument from divine hiddenness (ADH) requires accepting that nonresistant nonbelief has existed or does exist. Yet some reasons for accepting nonresistant nonbelief are also reasons for accepting theistic-supporting and naturalism-falsifying evidentially compelling religious experiences (ECREs). Additionally, any reasons for rejecting ECREs can be used to reject nonresistant nonbelief, thus creating parity (at the very least) of epistemic warrant between the two claims. Consequently, accepting nonresistant nonbelief should lead to accepting ECREs. Accepting nonresistant nonbelief therefore indirectly threatens naturalism, atheism and even the ADH itself. To any reason that can be given for rejecting ECREs there corresponds a parallel reason for rejecting nonresistant nonbelief. So it is irrational to accept the ADH while refusing to accept ECREs. Yet the existence of ECREs contradicts the ADH’s conclusion. So the ADH is self-defeating.

I argue that the creation and freely chosen salvation and everlasting bliss of even just one person is a greater good than any finite amount of evil and suffering. Since it is extremely likely (if not certain) that, out of all possible individuals that could exist, some (or at least one) would only be freely saved through the contemplation and experience of evil and suffering, then God would be justified in creating a world with evil and suffering to allow for the salvation of such individuals, so long as no one else freely lost their salvation who otherwise would not have lost it because of the evil and suffering. Thus, the problem of evil dissipates, as a world with evil and suffering, even seemingly gratuitous evil and suffering, would be entirely expected given theism.

I argue that the aesthetic theoretical virtues of beauty, simplicity, and unification, as well as the evidential virtue of explanatory depth, can transform theistic-friendly personal cause (PC) arguments—like the kalām cosmological argument (KCA) and the fine-tuning argument—into stand-alone arguments for monotheism. The aesthetic virtues allow this by providing us with the grounds to rationally accept a perfect personal cause (i.e., God) as the best PC to believe in given the success of some PC argument. Using the KCA as an example, I argue that, once the KCA is accepted and a PC believed in, then a theory that posits a perfect PC as the cause of the universe is more beautiful, simpler, and has more unification and explanatory depth than the imperfect PC normally posited by the KCA’s standard conceptual analysis. And the same would hold true for any imperfect PC. Thus, once a PC argument has been accepted, the perfect PC theory is preferable to hold over any other PC theory. Finally, I address various objections to this reasoning.

The Evil God (EG) challenge alleges that because arguments used to support belief in a Good God (GG) can be mirrored by the EG hypothesis, then belief in the former is no more reasonable than belief in the latter. Thus, there is an epistemic symmetry between both hypotheses. This paper argues that one of the EG’s secondary traits, specifically his maximal possessiveness, would render it very likely, if not certain, that the EG would _not_ create anything at all. By contrast, the GG would very likely create. Consequently, the existence of anything non-divine would generate a significant asymmetry between the hypotheses—one that favors the GG hypothesis. Moreover, strategies to overcome this argument fail, and as such, the EG challenge is severely undermined.

One objection against the kalam is that while the standard arguments for its causal premise apply to things in the universe, they do not apply to the universe itself. Thus, universes could come into existence uncaused from nothing. This objection, however, creates a situation where an absurd universe is as likely to come into existence uncaused as a normal universe is. This then generates serious skepticism about the reliability of our cognitive faculties, the truth of our sensory inputs, and our past knowledge, thus creating a reductio ad absurdum against the objection.