Part I: Write a thorough essay on one of the following questions.  Do not write an essay on a question dealing with an article you gave a presentation on.

1. What is negative theology?  How does negative theology taken as an epistemological doctrine differ from negative theology taken as an ontological doctrine?  What is the central argument for negative theology taken as an epistemological doctrine?  What is one argument for negative theology taken as an ontological doctrine? What are some problems with either kind of negative theology?

2. Give the version of the design argument put forward by Paley.  What analogy did Paley use to support a key premise of his argument?  How did he develop this analogy in order to counter possible objections to it? Do you think that the explanatory power of Darwin's theory of evolution robs Paley's argument of probative power?  Why or why not?

3. State the Nyaya-Vaisesika cosmological argument for God's existence as put forward by Sridhara.  What are its ontological presuppositions?  What sort of God is it arguing for?  What objections does Sridhara consider to the argument?  How does he attempt to answer them?

4. What were the main objections Hume had to Paley's design argument?  What were the main objections Dharmakirti had to the Nyaya-Vaisesika cosmological argument? In what ways are these objections similar?  In what ways are they different?
How did Nyaya-Vaisesika thinkers attempt to answer Dharmakirti's objections?

5. Give Samuel Clark's version of the cosmological argument. In giving it be sure to define such key terms as "dependent being", "independent being", "contingent being", and "necessary being", as well as defining the principle of sufficient reason.
What objections did Hume level against Clark's version of the argument?

Part II: Write a thorough essay on one of the following questions.  Do not write an essay on a question dealing with an article you gave a presentation on.

1. Briefly outline Leibniz's solution to the problem of evil.  Why does Leibniz think that, despite appearances, this is the best of all possible worlds? How does he attempt to answer objections to this thesis? (In your answer to the last question, be sure to consider the following questions---How does Leibniz understand the nature of evil?  Why does he think God is in no way responsible for evil? What criteria did God make use of in choosing which possible world to create according to Leibniz?)

2. What does Hick mean when he says that God intended the world as a place where souls could be made?  Why does he think that many versions of the argument from evil radically misunderstand what the purpose of a good God would be in creating the world?  Why does Hick think that the sorts of physical evils humans face are necessary for the development of a morally good character?  What objections does he consider to his theory?  How does he answer them?

3. Explain Rowe's argument from evil.  Why does Rowe call his argument an evidentalistic argument?   What sorts of possible criticisms of this argument does Rowe consider?  Why does he think what he calls the direct attack on it is bound to be a failure?  What does he mean by the "indirect attack"?  Why does he think this has a better chance of succeeding?

4. How did the Zoroastrians attempt to solve the problem of evil?  What are some advantages of their solution?  What are some disadvantages of it?  How did Mardan-Farruck attempt to give philosophical support to Zoroastrian Dualism?

5. What was Ramanuja's solution to the problem of evil?  How is it like Hick's solution?  How is it different?  How would Ramanunuja respond to Rowe's evidentalistic argument from evil?  What are some difficulties with Ramanuja's solution?
What are some strengths of it?

6. What was Madhva's solution to the problem of evil?  How is it like Ramanuja's?  How is it different?  In what ways is it similar to Leibniz's solution?