In explaining each authors respective arguments, you should use quotes from the text, to justify your attributions. However, no outside sources should be used. 
No, bibliography is required, however, you should note in parentheses the page on which the quoted material is found (in either edition of the text).
Ex: Nagel claims that arguing that evil is only the absence of good will not help to dispel the problem, for facts are not altered or abolished by rebaptizing them 
At least one page of the paper should be dedicated to your defense of the final question of each option.

Option 1: Are there rational grounds for belief in God despite the existence of evil? Critically
evaluate Nagel’s argument for atheism against Swinburne’s theodicy. Does Swinburne provide a sufficient response to the problem of evil in your view? Why or why not? Defend your answer.

Option 2: Are human beings free and responsible agents? Weigh the argument for hard
determinism (discussed by Ayer) against either Ayer or Frankfurt’s soft determinist response and the libertarian argument posed by Taylor. Who has the best argument, in your view, and why? Defend your answer.

Option 3: Mill alleges that morally correct actions are those that result in the greatest happiness for all affected? Is this true? Consider the objections to utilitarianism raised by the problem cases in Williams’s “Critique of Utilitarianism” and/or the so-called Trolley Problem. Are these real problems for the theory or does the Utilitarian get the answer right even in these difficult cases? Defend your answer.