Week 9 — Order, Evil, and Proof: Testing the Arguments about God

Assignment 8 of the term — credit this week's arguments to their sources, key an argument about design for validity, reconstruct the ontological argument, weigh the design argument and the problem of evil at their strongest, and explain the problem of evil to someone new to philosophy.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into exact, well-reasoned work. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. In Week 2 you learned standard form, validity, inductive strength, and the valid and invalid forms, and in Week 5 you learned the difference between a priori and a posteriori. This week you learned the ontological argument and the island objection, the cosmological argument of Aquinas's first three ways, Paley's watch on the heath and Hume's objections, the logical and evidential problems of evil with the free will defense and soul-making, and Pascal's wager recalled from Week 8. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Philosophy Workshop practice the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together. You never have to say what you personally believe about God; you are judging how arguments work.

The task

You will use this week's pinned sources, Dataset G (the arguments about God), and Dataset B, the argument set (illustrative). Dataset B's premises are written for teaching and are not claims the course endorses; the course keys its arguments for validity only, never for soundness, because the premises are open questions. The everyday cases below were written for this assignment; they are illustrative and describe no real person or place.

Part A — get the sources right, then reconstruct. A post on a study-group forum reads: "Hume's watch on the heath proved that God designed the world. Aquinas wrote that God's existence can be proved in four ways, and Pascal's wager is the fifth proof." Do four things:

• Correct the post. Name whose case the watch on the heath is and the work and year it comes from; name the work in which Hume pressed objections to the design argument and when it was published; give Aquinas's line from Dataset C word for word, with the translators who wrote those English words, and say which of the ways are the cosmological argument; and say what kind of argument the wager is and what Dataset G lists as its direction.
• Key argument 6. Write Dataset B's argument 6 in standard form ("If the universe was designed, it shows order. The universe was not designed. So it shows no order."), name its form, key it for validity with a one-sentence reason from the definition of validity, and build one same-shape argument of your own, on a new topic, whose premises are true and whose conclusion is false.
• Reconstruct the ontological argument. Write Anselm's argument in standard form, mark any premise you add as "(added)", name the form the key step uses, say whether the argument is valid as you reconstruct it, and say whether it is a priori or a posteriori and why.
• Press and reply. State the greatest-possible-island objection in one or two sentences, then the strongest reply from the argument's side.

Then work this problem, showing your reasoning:

1. Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion were published in 1779, and Paley's Natural Theology in 1802. How many years separate them?

Part B — weigh the arguments. Work this problem first, showing your reasoning:

1. Pascal's Pensées were published in 1670, and Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion in 1779. How many years separate them?

Then do two things:

• State two arguments at their strongest. First, state Paley's design argument as its best defenders would, as an argument from analogy judged for strength, then give Hume's two objections and a reply from the design side. Second, state the logical problem of evil in standard form as Mackie presses it, then give the free will defense, then the critic's reply from natural evil.
• Name the disagreement. End with one plain sentence naming exactly where defenders and critics of these arguments disagree, without announcing which side is right.

Explain it to a non-expert

A coworker who has never taken philosophy says, "The problem of evil is an argument that religious people are bad." Write a 3–5 sentence message in everyday words that explains what the problem of evil argues, why it is about whether a set of claims fits together rather than about anyone's character, and one honest limit of what the argument shows by itself. Explain any term your coworker might not know.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a roommate who asks whether an inductive argument is only a guess. Model answer: "An inductive argument does not promise that its conclusion must be true. It says its reasons make the conclusion likely, the way many dark clouds make rain likely. So we ask how strong it is, not whether it is airtight. One limit: even a strong one can turn out wrong, so it gives good reason, not certainty."

Use that pattern for your message to your coworker, with your own explanation of the problem of evil.

Reflect on your revision

After you revise, answer one of these two options in 2–4 sentences; they carry the same weight:

• (a) Which change made your sourcing or one of your reconstructions more exact, and which definition or pinned fact showed you it was needed?
• (b) Which change made your statement of the design argument or the problem of evil stronger, and what had you left out at first?

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft Part A, Part B, and your message to your coworker before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Reply in your own words. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one correction, reconstruction, or statement of an argument, even if your first attempt was strong, and then reflect using option (a) or (b).
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write your corrections, reconstructions, or message for you. If it credits the watch to Hume, calls the wager a proof, treats the design argument as the cosmological argument, mocks belief or unbelief, or tells you whether God exists, check that against Chapter 9 before you use it.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory philosophy course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about this week's ideas: Anselm's ontological argument from the Proslogion and the greatest-possible-island objection; the cosmological argument of Aquinas's first three ways in the Summa Theologica; William Paley's watch on the heath from Natural Theology (1802) and the design argument as an argument from analogy; David Hume's objections in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (published after his death, 1779); J. L. Mackie's logical problem of evil from "Evil and Omnipotence" (1955), the evidential problem of evil, the free will defense, and soul-making theodicies; and Pascal's wager from the Pensees (1670) as an argument about what to believe, not a proof. Do not write my assignment for me and do not invent work I did not show. Never invent a quotation, a philosopher's view, or a source; never call a Dataset B argument sound or unsound; never mock belief or unbelief or rank any religion; and never announce a verdict on whether God exists.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. Part A: I correct a forum post that says "Hume's watch on the heath proved that God designed the world. Aquinas wrote that God's existence can be proved in four ways, and Pascal's wager is the fifth proof." I name whose case the watch is with its work and year, the work in which Hume pressed objections and when it was published, Aquinas's line word for word with its translators and which ways are cosmological, and the wager's kind and Dataset G direction. I key Dataset B's argument 6 (illustrative): "If the universe was designed, it shows order. The universe was not designed. So it shows no order." I name its form, judge its validity with a reason, and build a same-shape argument with true premises and a false conclusion. I reconstruct Anselm's ontological argument in standard form (P1, P2, P3, P4, then C introduced by "So") with any added premise marked "(added)", name the form of its key step, judge its validity as reconstructed, and say whether it is a priori or a posteriori. I state the island objection and the reply from the argument's side. Part B: I state Paley's design argument at its strongest as an argument from analogy judged for strength, with Hume's two objections and a reply from the design side; I state the logical problem of evil in standard form, the free will defense, and the critic's reply from natural evil; and I end with one plain sentence naming where defenders and critics disagree.
PROBLEM P1: Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion were published in 1779, and Paley's Natural Theology in 1802. How many years separate them?
PROBLEM P2: Pascal's Pensées were published in 1670, and Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion in 1779. How many years separate them?
For P1 I must also supply the forum-post correction, argument 6 with my counterexample, the ontological argument reconstruction, and the island objection with its reply. For P2 I must also supply the design argument and the problem of evil with their objections and replies, and the plain sentence; then a 3-5 sentence message in everyday words to a coworker who thinks the problem of evil is an argument that religious people are bad. After revising, I reflect using option (a) or (b) from my assignment page.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply, out of 100 points. Sourcing and attribution (P1): 20 if the correction credits the watch on the heath to William Paley, Natural Theology (1802); credits the objections to Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (published after his death, 1779); gives "The existence of God can be proved in five ways." word for word with the Fathers of the English Dominican Province as translators and names the first three ways as the cosmological argument; says the wager is prudential, about belief rather than proof, with the direction "for belief"; and works the P1 year gap; 10 if at least three but not all of those five parts are accurate; 0 if fewer. Argument reconstruction (P1): 25 if argument 6 is in standard form, named as denying the antecedent, judged invalid with a reason, with a working same-shape counterexample; the ontological argument is in standard form with its added premise marked, its key step named as denying the consequent, judged valid as reconstructed, and sorted as a priori with a reason; and the island objection and its reply are both stated; 15 if two of the three are complete and the third has one gap; 5 if at least one form is named and judged with a reason but two or more have gaps; 0 otherwise. Evaluation of the arguments (P2): 25 if the design argument is stated as an argument from analogy judged for strength with both of Hume's objections and a reply from the design side, the logical problem of evil is in standard form with the free will defense and the natural-evil reply, the plain sentence names the disagreement without a verdict, and the P2 year gap is worked; 15 if one of those parts is missing; 5 if two or more are missing or an argument is stated in a weakened form; 0 if no accurate evaluation. Plain-language explanation for a non-expert (P2): 15 if the message is in everyday words, says what the problem of evil argues, explains why it concerns whether claims fit together rather than anyone's character, and names a limit; 8 if it can be followed but omits one of those points or leaves a term unexplained; 0 if missing. Revision and reflection (P2): 15 if I show a before-and-after change plus a reflection on why it is better; 8 if only one of the two; 0 if neither.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my reply. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to check it against the definitions and the pinned sources. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word reply is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both problems with the forum-post correction, argument 6 and my counterexample, the ontological reconstruction with the island objection and reply, the design argument and the problem of evil with their objections and replies, the plain sentence, and the coworker message AND revised at least one part AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my correction, my reconstructions, my evaluation, and my message]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work: the forum-post correction with the first year gap, the keyed argument 6 with your counterexample, the ontological argument reconstruction, and the island objection with its reply; the design argument and the problem of evil with their objections and replies, and the plain sentence with the second year gap; your message to your coworker; and your reflection — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 9 skills — crediting each argument and objection to its source, work, and year, quoting Aquinas's line exactly with its translators, putting an argument in standard form and judging its validity without keying soundness, building a same-shape counterexample to an invalid form, stating the design argument and the problem of evil at their strongest with their objections and replies, and explaining the problem of evil to someone new to philosophy — for comparable time and effort, about 75 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete Part A, Part B, the message to your coworker, and one reflection option. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion: for the correction, check each author, title, and year against Chapter 9's record, and check Aquinas's line word for word against Chapter 9; for each reconstruction, underline any added premise and check the form's name against Week 2's list; for your counterexample, confirm that its premises are true and its conclusion false; for each argument, ask whether its best defender would sign your statement of it; and check that your coworker message keeps the argument apart from anyone's character. Write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one change you made, the definition or pinned fact that prompted it, and one question you still have. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The correction, reconstructions, evaluation, message, revision, and reflection must be your own words. Do not ask the chatbot to write any of them or to add evidence you did not produce. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com