New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Phil Of Religion Notes

by: Isaiah Lubben

Phil Of Religion Notes 1290

Marketplace > PHIL-Philosophy > 1290 > Phil Of Religion Notes
Isaiah Lubben


Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

These notes cover the upcoming exam
Philosophy of Religion
John Collins
Study Guide
50 ?




Popular in Philosophy of Religion

Popular in PHIL-Philosophy

This 40 page Study Guide was uploaded by Isaiah Lubben on Saturday February 6, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to 1290 at a university taught by John Collins in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 19 views.

Similar to 1290 at University

Popular in PHIL-Philosophy


Reviews for Phil Of Religion Notes


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 02/06/16
Philosophy of Religion: 1290 What is philosophy Critical i.e.: Miracles, of Religion? Examination of Omnipotence, faith. basic religious beliefs and concepts. What is Plurality of divine Zeus, Aphrodite, etc. Polytheism? beings or Gods What is Plurality of Gods; Gods of other tribes; not Henotheism? but worship only mine one. What is Everything that Eastern religions Pantheism? exists has an (Buddhism, Hinduism, inner nature that etc.) is one and the same in all things; and that inner nature is God. What is One’s own god Creator of heavens and Monotheism? was the creator - earth. and God of all Creates the idea of 3 people realms: Heaven, Earth, and Hell. “Robinson defined as “The God Out There” NOT the God “Up There.” Robinson believes that “Out there” is irrelevant. “Out There” = The God of The Traditional Theologians What is the Purely spiritual, Rather majestic idea of Dominant idea of supremely good, God – Slowly made its God? all-powerful, all- way into Western knowing, who civilization. [Independent has created the of western laws of nature world but is not a and space.] Law of part of it. space: Nothing can exist Separate from at two places, as a whole, the world, not at one time. Law of subject to its time: Nothing can exist, laws; judges it, as a whole, in two and guides. different times at the same time. Life is divided into temporal parts – and at any particular moment, only one of these temporal parts is available. [Past isn’t present today, present isn’t available yesterday, ad the future isn’t available today.] What are the Self-Existence: Supremely good being, attributes of God? Explained by St. separate from the world, Anselm. (Nothing all-knowing, all-powerful, that exists or and the creator of the ever did exist – is universe. God’s equal). We can ask what accounts for the Table = accounted for by something else (By fact that it existsanother). (Table  Carpenter took [A Tree, a mountain, a wood and made lake = By another.] it.) ANSELM’S 2 PROPOSALS  A supremely good being Either one’s could not base its existence is existence on something explained by 1.) else, unlike the tree; if it by another, 2.) did, it would not be a by nothing, or supremely good being. 3.) by itself. Whatever is supreme Eternal: [1] To MAY NOT justify its own existence on/to have endless something else; this temporal existence; would make it not without supreme and powerful. Must be defined by itself beginning or an OR nothing at all. Defined end. [2] To have an infinite by nothing  No duration in both explanation for its temporal existence whatsoever. Anselm’s opinion(s): directions. Point [2] states that an [1] “It is utterly eternal being inconceivable that does not have its what is something should exist through life broken up nothing.” [2] into temporal parts; it is not “Whatever exists subject to the should have an explanation for its law of time. existence.” The Therefore, a being that has supreme being’s infinite duration existence MUST be due to itself. Relating to in each temporal eternity, God did not direction AND is subject to the come into existence at a law of time certain point in time – he would NOT be is eternal. The supremely good being DID NOT eternal. 3 Boethius, bring itself into Anselm, and existence. Anselm’s Aquinas held in Campfire analogy for the second point; the existence of that God is qualities: A rock near a outside of time fire is warm; there is and is not nothing within the rock to subject to its make it be warm – the laws. fire, and how close the rock is to the fire, defines why the rock is hot. It is the nature of the fire to be warm just as it is in a triangle’s nature to have three angles. Warmth is a fact about the fire accounted for by the nature of the fire; by what it means to BE a fire.  An example of the fact about a thing [warmth] that is accounted for by the nature of the thing itself [the fire]. What does it mean All-powerful; able Thomas Aquinas – From to be omnipotent? to do all things his “Summa Theological” that are possible. “Able to do all things that Relative are possible” – Aquinas possibility: When believes that the “things it lies within the possible” should be power of some absolute possibilities for being or beings God to be omnipotent. If to do. [Flying for we stated that the 4 birds] relative possibilities were Absolute in use, then God would possibility: If it is able to do all things not a that are not in contradiction in terms – contradiction in (i.e.: Flying for birds, terms. [Married Bachelor; chairs are for sitting, etc.) straight gay God cannot make a square round and cannot person, or beat me in chess after I winning a game of chess after have checkmated him. “It checkmate]. is more appropriate to say that these things cannot be done; rather than say that God cannot do them”. But aren’t there things that are not contradictory, and yet such that God cannot do them? Such as committing suicide or doing evil deeds?  Inconsistent with God’s nature: eternity and perfect goodness. Since God is supremely good, He will never exercise the right to do evil. God has the power to do evil = the cease to have an attribute (perfect goodness); which is his entire 5 essence or existence. To amend Aquinas’ statement: God can do anything that is an absolute possibility IF it is not inconsistent with any of His basic attributes. If Evil equals perfectly good; and Perfectly good equals God; then Evil equals omnipotence. What is the Either God has Solution to this puzzle: Paradox of The the power to creating a stone so heavy Stone? create a stone so that God cannot lift is heavy that he doing something cannot lift it, orinconsistent with one of God does not his attributes  have that power. Omnipotence. God If he does have cannot create such a the power to stone anymore than he create this stone, can do an evil deed. there is God cannot perform something God an evil deed because cannot do: lift his perfect goodness the stone. IF God is essential to him; cannot create therefore, he cannot such a stone, create such a stone then there is because his something else omnipotence is he cannot do. essential to him. (Create the stone). God equals 6 omnipotent. What does it mean God cannot Since God is to be perfectly cease to be unsurpassably good, he good by perfectly good; has all the features that definition? perfectly good is unsurpassable goodness an attribute of implies. Among these is God. If God gave Moral Goodness. up being perfectly good, he would no longer be God. A bachelor is unmarried by definition; but a bachelor can become married and lose the term “bachelor”. God cannot cease to be God because then he would cease to be perfectly good. [Vice- Versa] What is moral Vital part of “He led a good life” Goodness? goodness; but (Perfect justice, not the whole part. benevolence, etc.) Thought to be the source or standard of what it is 7 for human life to be moral. Could God create a morally bad world? With his moral perfection, God would HAVE to create the best morally sound world he could. Moral perfection VS. Morality in human life. God has been the source of our moral duties; both negative duties (Taking an innocent life) and positive duties (Helping others in need). If God has absolute moral perfection = commands what is morally right; however, are these things morally right because God commands them? OR does God command them because they are morally right? [“Something cannot already be morally right if God was not the one to create it; therefore, god cannot command something that is already morally right – this wouldn’t be possible. God would have to be the one to create it. It is ONLY morally sound if God 8 created it”]. –Alex Greco God  Steve Jobs  I- phone (God has an indirect relationship with the iphone, so he cannot say whether or not it is morally sound; whereas, Steve Jobs created, and has a direct relationship with the i-phone, can say whether or not it is morally sound.) God gives you the ingredients; but you assemble the product. Morality itself need not depend on God – our knowledge of morality is dependent by God’s commands. Also, the practice of morality may be aided by the belief in God. [Just because God does not command it, it does not imply that it is morally wrong.] (“Societal norms”) Is it true that 2+2=4 because God believes it? OR does God believe that 2+2=4 because it is true that 2+2=4? The second one makes much more 9 sense. Certain mathematical statements are true independent of God’s believing them; the way some things are is not ultimately a matter of God’s will or commands. Explain how God If God were able can be omnipotent to do evil, then and yet NOT have God would not be the power to do a “supremely evil. good” being; thus, denying one His major attributes. Also, if God were able to do evil deeds, it would contradict his “perfect goodness” attribute; therefore, God can no more do an evil act then He can create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift. What is it meant A self-existent A supreme [1] to be a self- being is not one being did Inconceivabl existent being? that is created by NOT bring e for another or by itself into something nothing; it must existence; to exist 10 be in existence it simply through due to itself. A exists. [Use nothing and supremely the [2] powerful being Campfire whatever could not base analogy]. It exists itself on/from is in God’s should have something else – nature to an then it would not exist and explanation be a supremely to be for its good being. supremely existence. good and powerful. Law of space: A supremely Nothing can be in good being is two places, as a eternal. Either whole, at different [1] Has endless times. temporal Law of time: existence OR [2] Nothing can exist, an eternal being at different times, does not have its life broken up as a whole, at the same time. into temporal parts; it is not subject to the law of time. BUT a being that has infinite duration in each temporal direction AND is subject to the law of time would NOT be eternal 11 What is the The “God of The NARROW SENSE: BROAD SENSE: theistic idea Traditional Theist: Believe Theist: of God? Theologians”. in a supremely someone who (God out there.) good being – believes in the independent and existence of separate of the divine beings – world. Atheist: even if his idea Does not believe is different than in the theistic that of the God. Agnostic: western view. Considers the Atheist: theistic idea(s) Someone who but believes rejects belief in neither in the every form of existence not the deity; not just nonexistence of the God “Out the Theistic god. there”. What is To know all Omniscience truths; all ? knowing. What is a “a Depends on a Posteriori” principle or argument? premise that can be known only by means of experience. What is a “a Depends on Priori” principles that argument? can be known independently of our experience. 12 What is an … has When we argument? premises; these evaluate an support the st argument, we an conclusion. 1 part: Prove ask 2 questions What are the the existence of about it: [1] If “Cosmologic [1] Things are a special sort of al argument” undergoing being – one that the premises change were true, would points? could not have the conclusion resulting from failed to exist have to be true? change that is and one that itself (“Deductively” unchanging, [2] causes change in valid) [2] Are all other things but the premises There are in itself it true? certain things unchanging. that are clearly 1 and 2 are caused to exist 2ndpart: Prove correct?  the special sort by other things of being’s Sound – thereby, argument concluding that existence is they must have comprised of (Sound = Valid God’s attributes. + all true come into st premises.) existence 1 part: Concept through another of a dependent Deductively being, and [3] being and a self- valid if it has the following There are things existent being. that need not Example: property: if all its exist at all – premises were things that we [Samuel Clark] true, the “[P1]: Every conclusion can imagine if being (that [that] they would have to weren’t. exists or every be true. did exist) is Deductively either a Valid: dependent [1] All cats have being OR a self-existent fur. {False} 13 being; [P2]: [2] Cecil is a cat Not every [C] Cecil has fur being can be a dependent being; [C]: Deductively Therefore, Valid: there exists a [1] All presidents self-existent of the USA have being. ALSO : been from Ohio. [2 ndPremise]  [2] Palin is [1] There must POTUS be a self- [3] Palin is from existent being [2] Only God Ohio. can be self- existent, thus, Deductively [C] God must Invalid: [1] All exist. 1 : (This planets are premise states: X round = A or C; but X [2] Jupiter is does not equal B. (Anslem would round st [C] Jupiter is a believe the 1 premise.) planet Are numbers self- Inductively invalid existent? The nature ensures argument: that it exists. Is [1] La Ribera matter/energy has had taco self-existent? Tuesday on 1st Law of every non- holiday Tuesday. Thermo- Dynamics: [2] Today is a (Conservation of non-holiday 14 Energy/Matter): Tuesday [C] La energy/matter Ribera has Taco cannot be Tuesday today. created or [Uses the past destroyed in a as a guide to closed system. the future – Why is there Conclusions something are probable; rather than not valid.] nothing?  Peter Van Inwagen. There is a way the actual world is; there is Petitionary an indefinitely Prayer (Puzzle large, maybe about prayer): infinitely many, An argument ways there could against have been petitionary different things inprayer. 1.) the universe. Either it is for What if there the best, for were nothing? mom to survive, How many or it isn’t for the different ways best. 2.) If it is could you have for the best, a “nothing”? One. perfect God, Nothing is would ensure it nothing; only one happens even without your version. There seems to be just prayer; so your one prayer is “arrangement” of unnecessary. 3.) nothing. If it is not for the best, God won’t 15 Infinite # of make it happen combinations even though you of there being prayed for it; so something. your prayer is One way for unnecessary. there to be _______________ nothing Probability C.) Your prayer won’t overwhelmingly accomplish favors there anything; being something petitionary rather than prayer can nothing. never be effective. Is this a VALID argument? Yes. (Does it flow logically?)  [1] P or not P [2] If P, then Q [3] If not P, then Q [C]: Q Is it a SOUND argument? Kreider Argument: If praying for victory bad? Getting an outside force to intervene is not 16 good sportsmanship. (Like paying off the referee). Is he right? That praying to God for help and winning – it’s an attempt at cheating. Getting an outside party to intervene. Consider objections: 17 st What is the 1 (a) point: If PSR-a is true, Argument to try “Principle of There must be then P1 will also to reject P2: Sufficient an explanation be true. “[P1]: There Reason”? of the existence must be a first If PSR-b is true, of any being. then is P2 true? being to start 2 nd(b) point: series; [P2]: If A1: Living thing every being There must be an explanation A2: Brought A1 were of any positive into existence. dependent (Died after giving there would facts. (Man’s health, “birth”). be NO first thoughts, etc.) A3: Brought A2 being; [C]: Not every being A Negative into existence, can be a fact would be: etc. “There are no dependent (PSR-a is satisfied being.” elephants in the above.) this room.” BUT if A1 comes The series itself from A2, etc., Infinite # of lacks an then wouldn’t dependent explanation. (The beings – Train that sequence with infinite # fact that there be infinite? (This are, and have would cancel out of cars. always been, 1 car pulls the dependent P1 of this nd argument.) 2 , etc. Thus, beings.) [A why is the collection of whole train stamps is not a moving? stamp.] 1  2  3  4 th th th th 5  6  7  … 18 What are [1] Makes the … criticisms of mistake of We need an the 2nd treating the explanation for premise ( If series as a every being dependent why there is this infinite were being – thus, causal chain of dependent requiring an beings, or there explanation of would be existence. [2] events, rather than nothing. NO first Makes the This long chain being) mistake of of individuals inferring that since each VIOLATES the PSR-a. (due to member has a the fact that cause, then the the explanation series should is not have a cause. understood). If [3] Fails to you accept realize that forPSR-a-b, then there to be an you MUST explanation for accept a collection of COSMOLOGICA things is L P1, P2, and nothing more C. than having an explanation for each of its Wishing well members. critic: Why are If it were the all these coins PSR-b, this here? “Little Susie smith premise would was here on be true. PSR-b states that ALL her birthday, positive facts she got it from her mom…, US should have an 19 explanation; therefore, the collection would have an explanation. Hume’s criticism: Existence of the collection is the same as the existence of each member; therefore, if every member has an explanation, we’ve explained the existence of the group and there is nothing left to be explained. The assumption to this is: The existence of the collection is sufficient enough to explain each member. (WORNG). This states that C1 and C2 are satisfied; however, in the 20 main argument, Mint. Why are C1 is and C2 is all the coins not. [C1: there? There is an explanation Why should we for the accept the members; C2: There is an PSR? What explanation evidence do we have that PSR for why there are ANY is true?  How beings.] do we prove that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line? (There are a number of wavy lines that are shorter than straight lines – Experimental Evidence)  Impossible Impossible to What is The show the Divine distance between two Command Theory of points; “points” Morality? are concepts; you cannot draw them or measure them. 21 The points, and lines, are in their selves the God’s truth. Commands What is How can we Euthyphros’s determine what know that PSR is Dilemma? is morally right true? It is and wrong. (All foundational there is to an and we know issue is what these things to God has to say be true by on it.) rational Any discussion intuition. We about any moral just see that they’re true – issues is we just grasp irrelevant – this truth. because it is Example: God’s choice. communicative This theory math  63 + 47 and 47+ 63. seems to make God’s Another PSR commands reasoning for truth: “Why did arbitrary. the space shuttle blow [1] Are up?” There is no 1 horn of actions right reason that it the DCM: blew up. They because the god’s love are wrong. them? (DCM). Methodological OR presupposition [2] Do the of inquiry that PSR is true. gods love them because To engage in the they are method of 22 right? inquiry, you (Secular) must take, as an [1]: Accept the assumption, PSR. There must DCM. be a truth for all [2]: You accept things. that gods love Some scientists things that are reject the PSR – right; but you due to don’t accept experimental that what evidence. What makes it right isarea of science? that gods love  Theoretical Physics; it. Quantum Physics. (some If [1] DCM is events could not true, then God’s have an explanation; commands would be such as arbitrary! radioactive (Honesty is elements “half lives”. Length of commanded time in which an and dishonesty is forbidden.) atom has a 50% chance of [“Because I said undergoing so” approach to radioactive morality!]  decay. Abuse of power; Kreider’s Uranium 238: Article: whimsical? 4.5 billion years God commands for a half life. honesty Why did half because it is decay and half good – and not? “No reason” – “A that’s why it is matter of 23 commanded. probability; there is no finite (#2) Why wouldn’t reason.” True God tell you to randomness, torture children? (If it that which has were right, no reason, violates the would it be PSR. “right”?) There’s something [Socrates asked wrong with it- Euthyphro to what makes it explain what his wrong? The idea of right pain that is actions.] What are some charged A strike in objections to towards the baseball is a this? children and the pain towards strike because it is a strike; and an the parents. umpire calls it a strike because It     is a strike; not because they define what a strike is. What makes lying wrong? -> “Unsporting behavior” – an Trust requires attempt to mostly cheat. Asking a honesty; lying erodes trust. non-participant to interfere in Trust is an athletic required for competition is cooperation 24 unsporting; an and attempt to cooperation is cheat. [Ex.: required for Bribery, ask human fans to use communication laser pointers, . Dishonesty is etc.] generally Thus, wrong. Dishonesty is petitionary wrong because prayer, for assistance in God said it is obtaining wrong. victory, is also unsporting behavior and an attempt at cheating. [1] It isn’t cheating because it is readily available to both sides. Kreider’s reply: Almost all cheating is. [2] God would not answer that kind of prayer; so, that kind of prayer cannot be unsporting or cheating behavior. 25 Kreider’s reply: The attempt is still Ontological cheating! Argument: [3] There is no rule against praying for assistance; so, it cannot be cheating. [4]”Unenforcea ble”; so, we Contingent cannot call it thing: “cheating” Kreider’s reply: There is a rule against it; a general rule of fair play. An [5] Since God impossible would only grant prayers thing: for things that are for the best, rest assured that getting A assistance from necessary God during a game would not thing: be granted. (Objection: Person could believe that they could lure 26 A Possible children to a thing: dungeon and molest them – they think it is for the best) Kreider’s reply: If so, you could rightly Anselm’s pray for distinctions: anything at all, no matter how depraved. A cluster of arguments FOR the existence of God. Example of Contingent things: Left side (Exists) – Right side (Does not exist) Logically might have been on the other side; something that may have been on the other side in previous states. 27 Could not be on the opposite side. [on the right side] (A round square) – thing that is on the left side; What is Anselm’s but could have “Fool’s logically been Claim”? on the right side. Anselm any thing that is either on the sought out left side or to prove: could have If there are no logically been necessary on the left side. things, all [Contingent or possible things Necessary]. will be contingent and all contingent Existence in things will be the possible. understandin If there IS a g and necessary thing, existence in then there will reality  be a possible Existence in thing which is NOT contingent. reality is on 28 the left of the imaginary line. The things that exist are the things that What is Anselm’s exist in idea of reality. God? --To meaningfully deny the existence of something, I must have that thing in mind – which, whenever someone asserts that some thing does not exist, that thing does exist in understandin g. – (FOY: Fountain of Youth) FOY does not What are “Great- exist FOY does not making exist in the qualities”? understandin 29 g – and by asserting that the FOY doesn’t exist, it doesn’t exist in reality; in short: the FOY only exists in the understandin g God only exists in the understandin g; God exists in the understandin g, but not reality. a.) A being than which no existing being is greater b.) A being than which no 30 conceivabl e being is greater [Example: If there were Criticisms only a frog, a of this stone, and a argument: human on the planet, “a” would be satisfied.] because we can, b, conceive of a being (god or angel) greater than a human. “A being than which nothing greater can be conceived.” OR “The being than which none greater is possible.”  “If a certain being is God, then no POSSIBLE being can be greater that it”; OR “if a 31 certain being is such that it is even possible for there to be a being greater than it, then that being is not a God.” He proposes to prove that: “the being than which none greater is possible exists in reality.” By “Great”, God = “The Anselm does being than not mean which none physically greater is possible.” great - but that which, [1] God exists in the greater it the is, is the understanding better or the [2] God might more worthy – have existed in wisdom for reality example. [3] If something [Wisdom, exists only in Moral the understanding goodness, 32 existence in and might have reality] existed in Why is reality, then it might have been existing in greater than it reality a great is. making [C] God exists in quality?  the “Anything understanding that doesn’t exist but and reality. might have existed (is on the right, but ***But Anselm’s could have reasoning been on the applies only to left) would possible things; have been a Anselm can reject this greater thing than it is if it criticism on the had existed grounds that (been on the the island than which non left). greater is Example: Abominable possible is, like the round Snowman square, an “If something impossible thing***. exists only in the understandin g, but might have existed in reality, then it might have been 33 greater than it is.” Like the FOY. Gaunilo: The island argument  [1] If the island than which none greater is possible doesn’t exist, then it is an island than which a greater is possible. [2] But it is impossible for the island than which non greater is possible to be an island than which a greater is possible. 34 [C] Thus, the “There is island than nothing which non contradictory in greater is the idea of a magician, an possible must existing exist. magician. But in asserting that a Immanuel magician is a possible thing, Kant: we are directly The mistake in Anselm’s implying that some existing argument is thing is a its claim: magician. For if Existence is a no existing quality of thing is a predicate that magician, the adds to the concept of a greatness of a magician will apply to no thing. According to possible object Kant, whatever.” existence is not a predicate at all. Anselm’s claim: [1] Existence is a quality or predicate [2] existence, like wisdom and unlike physical size, is a great- 35 making quality or predicate. Kant directed his argument towards [1]. (In third premise) Existence is not a genuine predicate. 3rdCriticism: Calls into question the premise that God might have existed in reality. (God is a possible being.) 1,2,3,4… Any number above 4 is that which a larger than it is possible. If this were so, then like the integer example, Anselm’s “God” would 36 not be a possible object – because perhaps no matter how great the being may be, it is possible for there to be a being greater than it. Is Anselm’s God like the largest integer, and therefore impossible, OR like the largest angel and therefore possible? Anselm’s argument cannot be successful of the proof of God unless its premises are KNOWN to be true; therefore, if we don’t know that God is a 37 possible object, then his argument cannot prove the existence of God. 38 39 40


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

50 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."

Janice Dongeun University of Washington

"I used the money I made selling my notes & study guides to pay for spring break in Olympia, Washington...which was Sweet!"

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.