Why God Does Not Exist

Pam, here is the comments on the one page, to use for the final paper. See attached documents for rubric. “Andrew,This version looks a lot better! Your grade on it is 4/5.If you are wanting to use this for your final paper, make sure to explain what is meant by a pointless evil. Rowe’s argument focuses on this, so you need to explain what it is and why Rowe finds these types of evils especially objectionable. The
best way would be to explain why Rowe accepts each premise individually. So, tell me why Rowe thinks God would prevent pointless evil, what pointless evil is, and why Rowe thinks it exists.Let me know if you have any questions.”
final_paper_rubric_philo.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Why God Does Not Exist
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Exceeds? ?expectations
Meets? ?expectations
Needs? ?improvement
Unacceptable
Introduction/Conclusion
? The? ?introduction? ?clearly? ?lines
out? ?what? ?the? ?paper? ?will? ?cover? ?in
each? ?section.
? The? ?conclusion? ?contains? ?a
concise? ?statement? ?of? ?what? ?path
the? ?paper? ?has? ?taken? ?to? ?its? ?final
conclusion? ?and? ?what? ?that? ?final
conclusion? ?is.
? The? ?introduction? ?offers? ?a
general? ?overview? ?of? ?what? ?the
paper? ?covers.
? The? ?conclusion? ?tells? ?the? ?reader
what? ?the? ?author’s? ?final
conclusion? ?is.
? The? ?introduction? ?provides? ?no
guidance? ?for? ?what? ?the? ?paper
will? ?cover.
? The? ?conclusion? ?does? ?not? ?cover
what? ?the? ?author’s? ?final
conclusion? ?is.
? The? ?introduction? ?provides? ?no
guidance? ?for? ?what? ?the? ?paper? ?will
cover? ?and? ?makes? ?reading? ?it
more? ?confusing.
? The? ?conclusion? ?does? ?not? ?relate
to? ?what? ?the? ?rest? ?of? ?the? ?paper? ?is
about.
Explaining? ?the? ?argument
? This? ?section? ?presents? ?a? ?crystal
clear? ?summary? ?of? ?the
argument? ?under? ?consideration
in? ?the? ?author’s? ?own? ?words.
? An? ?accurate? ?formalization? ?of
the? ?argument? ?is? ?given? ?with
numbered? ?premises.
? This? ?section? ?presents? ?a? ?cogent
summary? ?of? ?the? ?argument
under? ?consideration? ?in? ?the
author’s? ?own? ?words.
? A? ?near? ?accurate? ?formalization
of? ?the? ?argument? ?is? ?given.
? This? ?section? ?presents? ?a
confusing? ?summary? ?of? ?the
argument? ?under? ?consideration
in? ?the? ?author’s? ?own? ?words.
? A? ?wholly? ?inaccurate
formalization? ?of? ?the? ?argument
is? ?given.
? This? ?section? ?presents? ?no
summary? ?or? ?an? ?unrelated
summary? ?of? ?the? ?argument
under? ?consideration.
? No? ?formalization? ?of? ?the
argument? ?is? ?given.
Assessing? ?the? ?argument
? The? ?author? ?clearly? ?states? ?what
part? ?of? ?the? ?argument? ?they? ?are
attacking,? ?whether? ?it? ?be? ?a
specific? ?premise? ?or? ?its? ?validity.
? Good? ?reasons? ?are? ?given? ?for
thinking? ?that? ?the? ?premise? ?under
attack? ?is? ?false? ?or? ?that? ?the
argument? ?is? ?invalid.
? The? ?author? ?attacks? ?the
argument,? ?but? ?makes? ?it? ?unclear
what? ?part? ?they? ?are? ?attacking.
? Some? ?reasons? ?are? ?given? ?for
thinking? ?that? ?the? ?attack
undermines? ?the? ?argument
under? ?consideration.
? It? ?is? ?unclear? ?how? ?the? ?attacks
the? ?author? ?is? ?making? ?apply? ?to
the? ?argument? ?under
consideration.
? The? ?reasons? ?given? ?for? ?thinking
the? ?attack? ?undermines? ?the
argument? ?are? ?confusing? ?or
unrelated.
? No? ?attempt? ?is? ?made? ?to? ?provide
reason? ?to? ?think? ?that? ?the
argument? ?does? ?not? ?work.
? No? ?reasons? ?are? ?given? ?in
support? ?of? ?any? ?attack? ?on? ?the
argument.
Responding? ?to? ?possible
objections
? The? ?author? ?clearly? ?presents? ?a
possible? ?objection? ?to? ?the
reasons? ?given? ?for? ?rejecting? ?the
argument.
? The? ?author? ?offers? ?a? ?complete
response? ?to? ?that? ?possible
objection? ?to? ?show? ?that? ?their
attacks? ?on? ?the? ?argument? ?still
stand.
? The? ?author? ?presents? ?a? ?possible
objection,? ?but? ?makes? ?it? ?unclear
how? ?it? ?connects? ?to? ?their? ?attacks.
? The? ?author? ?responds? ?to? ?the
objection,? ?but? ?fails? ?to? ?make? ?it
obvious? ?how? ?the? ?response
saves? ?their? ?attacks.
? The? ?author? ?presents? ?a
confusing? ?objection? ?and? ?fails? ?to
make? ?it? ?clear? ?how? ?it? ?responds
to? ?their? ?attacks.
? The? ?response? ?to? ?the? ?objection
is? ?muddled? ?and? ?confusing.
? No? ?possible? ?objection? ?to? ?the
author’s? ?attacks? ?is? ?presented.
? The? ?author? ?fails? ?to? ?respond? ?to
the? ?possible? ?objection? ?raised? ?to
the? ?attacks? ?on? ?the? ?argument.
Grammar,? ?spelling,? ?and
organization
? The? ?paper? ?has? ?only? ?very? ?few
grammar? ?and? ?spelling
mistakes.
? The? ?paper? ?is? ?clearly? ?organized
by? ?section? ?headings? ?stating
what? ?each? ?section? ?is? ?about.
? The? ?paper? ?has? ?several
grammar? ?and? ?spelling
mistakes.
? The? ?paper? ?contains? ?section
headings? ?that? ?do? ?not? ?make
clear? ?what? ?is? ?in? ?each? ?section.
? The? ?paper? ?contains? ?many
grammar? ?and? ?spelling
mistakes? ?that? ?make? ?the? ?paper
harder? ?to? ?understand.
? No? ?section? ?headings? ?are
provided.
? The? ?paper? ?is? ?overrun? ?with
grammar? ?and? ?spelling? ?mistakes
that? ?make? ?comprehension? ?near
impossible.
? The? ?paper? ?is? ?not? ?organized? ?in
any? ?sort? ?of? ?coherent? ?fashion.
General? ?Overview
? ? ? ? ? ?In? ?this? ?paper,? ?you? ?will? ?be? ?assessing? ?an? ?argument? ?from? ?one? ?of? ?our
readings.? ?Your? ?paper? ?will? ?have? ?four? ?important? ?parts:? ?1)? ?the? ?author’s
argument;? ?2)? ?your? ?attacks? ?on? ?the? ?argument;? ?3)? ?some? ?possible? ?objection
to? ?your? ?attacks? ?on? ?the? ?argument;? ?4)? ?your? ?response? ?to? ?this? ?possible
objection.? ?In? ?this? ?way,? ?your? ?paper? ?will? ?take? ?the? ?form? ?of? ?a? ?dialogue? ?with
each? ?section? ?outlining? ?the? ?next? ?step? ?in? ?that? ?dialogue.
Due? ?Date
? ? ? ? ? ?This? ?paper? ?will? ?be? ?due? ?by? ?11:59pm? ?on? ?Thursday? ?December? ?14th.? ?Turn
in? ?the? ?paper? ?through? ?email? ?(?jonathan.nebel@slu.edu?).? ?Save? ?your? ?file? ?as
.doc? ?or? ?.docx? ?file? ?with? ?the? ?filename? ?of? ?“(lastname)(firstinitial)_finalpaper”
(ie.? ?if? ?your? ?name? ?is? ?Joe? ?Smith,? ?SmithJ_finalpaper.docx).? ?This? ?will? ?help? ?me
tremendously? ?in? ?keeping? ?all? ?the? ?files? ?organized.
Length
? ? ? ? ? ?Your? ?paper? ?will? ?need? ?to? ?be? ?3-5? ?double-spaced? ?pages? ?in? ?length? ?with
12-point? ?font? ?with? ?a? ?typical? ?font? ?(Times? ?New? ?Roman,? ?Arial,? ?Cambria).
Format
? ? ? ? ? ?Your? ?paper? ?should? ?be? ?divided? ?into? ?sections? ?that? ?go? ?along? ?with? ?each
section? ?lined? ?out? ?below.? ?Each? ?of? ?the? ?five? ?sections? ?of? ?the? ?paper? ?will? ?need
to? ?begin? ?with? ?a? ?bolded? ?title? ?that? ?states? ?what? ?that? ?section? ?is.? ?It? ?can? ?be? ?as
simple? ?as? ?“Introduction”? ?or? ?“Assessing? ?the? ?argument,”? ?but? ?feel? ?free? ?to? ?be
creative? ?and? ?have? ?some? ?fun? ?with? ?the? ?section? ?titles.
Citations
? ? ? ? ? ?No? ?specific? ?citation? ?method? ?is? ?required,? ?but? ?any? ?in-text? ?quotes? ?must
be? ?referenced? ?with? ?a? ?footnote.? ?Any? ?text? ?that? ?is? ?quoted? ?or? ?used? ?in? ?your
research? ?for? ?this? ?paper? ?must? ?be? ?cited? ?in? ?a? ?Works? ?Cited? ?page? ?at? ?the? ?end? ?of
the? ?paper.? ?This? ?Works? ?Cited? ?page? ?must? ?contain? ?the? ?work? ?that? ?contains
the? ?argument? ?you? ?are? ?attacking.
Overall? ?Organization
A. Introduction
B. Explain? ?the? ?argument
C. Assess? ?the? ?argument
D. Respond? ?to? ?possible? ?objections
E. Conclusion
? ? ?I.? ? ? ?Introduction
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?In? ?this? ?section,? ?you? ?need? ?to? ?offer? ?a? ?general? ?roadmap? ?forward? ?for? ?the
paper.? ?You? ?don’t? ?need? ?to? ?spend? ?time? ?trying? ?to? ?grab? ?the? ?reader’s? ?attention.
Get? ?straight? ?to? ?your? ?point.? ?The? ?easiest? ?way? ?to? ?do? ?this? ?is? ?start? ?with? ?a? ?short
sentence? ?or? ?two? ?summary? ?of? ?what? ?the? ?argument? ?you? ?are? ?attacking? ?is
about,? ?and? ?then? ?write? ?one? ?sentence? ?about? ?what? ?each? ?section? ?will? ?do.? ?(“In
section? ?1,? ?I? ?will? ?summarize? ?the? ?argument.? ?In? ?section? ?2,? ?I? ?will? ?attack? ?the
argument? ?by? ?claiming? ?that? ?one? ?of? ?its? ?premises? ?is? ?false…”)
II. Explaining? ?the? ?argument
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?In? ?this? ?section,? ?you? ?need? ?to? ?accomplish? ?two? ?goals.? ?First,? ?you? ?need? ?to
restate? ?the? ?argument? ?that? ?the? ?author? ?is? ?giving? ?in? ?your? ?own? ?words.? ?Feel
free? ?to? ?quote? ?from? ?the? ?author,? ?but? ?I? ?want? ?you? ?to? ?demonstrate? ?that? ?you
understand? ?what? ?they? ?are? ?saying? ?on? ?your? ?own? ?terms.? ?Second,? ?you? ?need
to? ?offer? ?a? ?formalization? ?of? ?the? ?argument? ?with? ?numbered? ?premises? ?that
make? ?the? ?logical? ?form? ?of? ?the? ?argument? ?clear? ?to? ?the? ?reader.
III. Assessing? ?the? ?argument
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?In? ?this? ?section,? ?you? ?need? ?to? ?accomplish? ?two? ?goals.? ?First,? ?you? ?need? ?to
state? ?clearly? ?how? ?you? ?are? ?attacking? ?the? ?argument? ?in? ?question.? ?Use? ?your
formalization? ?to? ?make? ?this? ?clear.? ?To? ?attack? ?an? ?argument,? ?you? ?need? ?to
either? ?argue? ?that? ?one? ?of? ?its? ?premises? ?is? ?false? ?or? ?that? ?the? ?argument? ?is
invalid.? ?State? ?which? ?strategy? ?you? ?are? ?taking,? ?and,? ?if? ?it? ?is? ?the? ?former,? ?tell
the? ?reader? ?which? ?premise? ?you? ?think? ?is? ?false.? ?Second,? ?provide? ?your
reasons? ?for? ?thinking? ?that? ?your? ?attack? ?on? ?the? ?argument? ?is? ?a? ?good? ?attack.
You? ?can? ?provide? ?a? ?formal? ?argument? ?of? ?your? ?own,? ?if? ?you? ?want,? ?but? ?you? ?do
not? ?have? ?to.
IV. Responding? ?to? ?possible? ?objections
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?In? ?this? ?section,? ?you? ?need? ?to? ?accomplish? ?two? ?goals.? ?First,? ?you? ?need? ?to
come? ?up? ?with? ?a? ?possible? ?objection? ?to? ?the? ?reason? ?you? ?gave? ?for? ?thinking
your? ?attack? ?is? ?a? ?good? ?one.? ?Imagine? ?you? ?were? ?in? ?a? ?debate? ?with? ?someone
defending? ?the? ?argument.? ?How? ?would? ?they? ?respond? ?to? ?your? ?reason?
Second,? ?you? ?need? ?to? ?respond? ?to? ?their? ?objection? ?and? ?explain? ?why? ?your
attack? ?is? ?still? ?a? ?good? ?one.
V. Conclusion
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?In? ?this? ?section,? ?you? ?need? ?to? ?wrap? ?up? ?your? ?paper? ?in? ?a? ?succinct? ?few
sentences.? ?Readers? ?should? ?be? ?able? ?to? ?read? ?only? ?your? ?conclusion? ?and
have? ?a? ?basic? ?understanding? ?of? ?what? ?moves? ?you? ?made? ?in? ?your? ?paper.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Order a unique copy of this paper
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency

Order your essay today and save 15% with the discount code ESSAYHELP