HUMA 1160 March 3, 2014
God that’s being discussed is the designer of the world.
Cleanthes says its false that god has infinite power. God is benevolent.
152 to 156 – discussion of evil, evil in the world.
Pg 156 last paragraph – philo, sets out his reasons why the world does not establish a benevolent
designer. Design of the world does not support a benevolent designer.
Page 157, second last paragraph on the page – Cleanthes says, and have you last at last, betrayed your
intentions philo… “and I must confess he says, that you have now fallen upon..IF You cAN MAKE OUT
THE PRESEENT POINT THAT MAN KIND IS UNHAPPY AND CORRUPTED, END OF ALL
RELIGION, MORAL attributes of god is doubtful and uncertain”. Cleanthes offers a challenge
158 – Argument here is, what we think is evil, isn’t really evil. Because if you could see the world from
the perspective of all eterinity that all bad things are rectified. Bad things seem terrible, but overall they
are not terrible at all they lead to kid
Pg 157 : Demia answers and says, opinions the most innocent and the generally received the most
religious, nothing can be more surprising, and misery of people. Indulged, fertile this subject. “There is no
problem explaining the goodness of the world” He says, this world is point in comparison, the present evil
phenomenon, the eyes of people opens larger eyes, mazes and intercurseys. The porch view of the
universe. Seeing things much more broadly and extensively, Demia point is if we had a comprehensive
view, we would see that evil would be rectified. Cleanthes response: NO! Can never be admitted, when
can any hypothesis be approved, establishing one hypothesis upon another.. the possibility.. Cleanthes is
saying that were using imperical argument, now we get pg 158, The second last paragraph on the page.
*Cleanthes offers his justification for maintaining the benevolence of god is unaffected by the evil in the
world.” Last point 158 – 160- gives three arguments philo, at the end its destroyed.
Page 156 last paragraph : Two Arguments
NO REFERENCE TO BENOVOLENCE IN THESE ARGUMENT
First argument against benovlence: “is power we allow infinite, what ever god wills is executed, wether
man or any other animal is happy, therefore god does not will our happiness.
Cleanthes arguement: God’s power is infinite, (what ever god wills happens)
Fact: Nor Humans or other animals are happy
Conclusion: God does not will their happiness
Second argument : God’s wisdom is infinite, what that means is that god never makes a mistake in
choosing appropriate means in accomplishing what he wants. God is never mistaken.
Fact: Fact is that nature doesn’t tend to support the happiness of humans or other animals. The course of
nature is hostile to us.
Conclusion: God didn’t intend to take course to make us happy.
Posistion taken by Cleanthes on divine benevolence. God’s benevolence is similar to our own
anthropomorphic. He is infinitely benevolent, we are limited.
Conclusion of the first argument Is that god does not will our happiness. Therefore, the conclusion of this
argument, is incompatiable with divine benevolence. HUMA 1160 March 3, 2014
Page 157-to top of – 158
Porch view of the universe.
Demia: You take.. nothing can be more surprising than find a topic like this, aethism.. pias devine and
natures.. The present evil phenomena.
Cleanthes: 2 counter arguments. Attempt to establish the goodness of god.
Page 168 second last paragraph
Cleanthes: The only method of supporting divine benevolence, is to deny absolutely wickness and misery
of people. You philo your representations of evil, are exaggerated, your melon coly views mostly fictious,
contrary to fact and experience, health is more common than sickness, pleasure is common than pain. We
attain a computation, 100 enjoyments. Your representations are exaggerated. Inferences, are the two
Cleanthes substitutes: Humans and other animals