IV. The Problem of Evil
So far, we have examined only arguments for the existence of God. But for each argument, we have also discussed some objections. Some theists may accept all these objections and yet maintain a belief in the existence of God.
Ernest Nagel, however, maintains that not only are there no good reasons to believe that God exists (he criticizes all of the arguments), there is a good reason to believe that God does not exist. On p. 145, he says raises the difficulty ...
" ... which arises from the simultaneous attribution of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence to the Deity. The difficulty is that of reconciling these attributes with the occurrence of evil on the world."
We 're going to expand on this idea. We
…show more content…
Rejoinder: This is certainly one way out. But it is a reply most theists are unable to accept. God is supposed to be the supreme, a being that is perfect in every way. This ensures that God is worthy of our worship. To give up omnipotence is to give up this picture of God.
b. good and evil are illusions
Another move is to deny P4 and say that there is no evil in the world. One can do this by saying that morality is an illusion -- by being a sort of nihilist.
Rejoinder: This, too, is a solution most theists are unwilling to make. It is part of many religious traditions that bad things do happen in the world. And independently of that, denying this premise seems very implausible. It is very implausible to say that rape, murder, torture of innocent people is not a bad thing.
c. mystery reply
People who hold this "solution" say things like, "God works in mysterious ways; who are we to judge God?"
Rejoinder: The person who gives this "solution" simply refuses to take part in a philosophical discussion about the existence of God. This "solution" should be unacceptable to anyone who is seriously engaged in philosophical theology because it does not object to any premise of the argument. This "solution" offers no reason for anyone to believe that the Argument from Evil is
…show more content…
It is claimed that freedom is good -- a world with free creatures is, all else being equal, better than a world without free creatures. But when there 's free creatures, we run the risk of those creatures freely causing some evil. God is not responsible for this evil. And, though he could certainly prevent the evil we bring about, he could not prevent it without destroying our freedom (for to allow someone to make choices only if they are the ones you like is not to give him
The problem of evil philosophy has been a long debated topic. The idea that God is almighty, God is perfectly good, and evil exists has many different sides, which sparks many different explanations. During Candide, Voltaire addresses the topic with multiple examples applying to both moral and natural evils. However, the problem of evil to me is not as simple as one answer. I believe that there needs to be a certain extent of evil to bring out good and that is why God created it.
“The Problem of Evil” by Peter van Inwagen, is a series of lectures that that presents van Inwagen’s various responses to problem of evil. In this essay, I will present “the local problem of evil” (from chapter 6 of the book), the solution van Inwagen proposes for this problem, and my critique of his solution. “The local problem of evil,” according to van Inwagen, is the hypothetical response an atheist would have towards van Inwagen’s solution of “the global problem of evil” which is, “If god existed, then why is there so much evil in the world?” The argument of “the local problem of evil” is “If god existed then why are there specific horrors that occur in the world, like children dying in a horrific car crash?” The argument that is drawn
The objective of this paper is to propose a topic centered on the ex hypothesi plausibility of a pantheist theodicy. Accordingly, the plausibility of a pantheist theodicy emanates from a reduction of Richard Swinburne 's Christian-centered theistic theodicy. Consequently, each theodicy hinges on a consequentialist model concerning the problem of evil. However, Swinburne 's theodicy and my proposal for theodicy disengage upon Swinburne 's condition demanding objective moral judgments. Finally, there will be a systematic annihilation of what I call agent-centered metaphors, which derive from the human tendency to anthropomorphize things, such as objects or events.
The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.
Essay 2 My goal in this paper is to show that Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive. I begin with a formulation of Swinburne’s thoughts about the similarity and difference between moral evil and natural evil. I then formulate the connection between evil and free will. Next, I consider the potentiality objection to this argument, and Swinburne’s response to this objection.
This is its biggest weakness, in order for it to succeed someone has to presuppose that God exists. Another weakness is based on whether or not existence is an actual property of something like its size, weight, or color. If existence isn’t considered a property then it fails, but if it is then it succeeds. Then there is the cosmological argument.
The question that there is a need for a cause of God’s existence will always be scrutinized and debated as answers are sought out to prove existence and
“The Problem of Evil” is simply the question, why does God allow evil to happen? God is omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, and rational, therefore why does evil exist? There is either no God or he is not what we think he is, since evil could be prevented by him with no risk. Atheists and anti-theodicist see a problem with the idea that God could prevent evil. They believe that because God is so powerful and perfect, that he would not allow such immoral actions to be done.
Another Milestone that effects the way we define the notion of “Good and Evil” is largely based on our religion. Therefore, the way we see right from wrong, heaven and hell, light and darkness, Good vs. Evil and God and the Devil comes from the moral criterion that we attempt to apply to our worldviews. However, given the conspicuous contrasts amongst religions, ranging from Christianity to Islam to Judaism. Many people believe that due to the simple fact of religious diversity, this provides the basis to discredit any assumption of moral truths. Some religions define evil as “the result of human sin” or that “Evil is the result of a spiritual being who opposes the Lord God”
In this reading reflection I will be discussing Richard Swinburne’s argument on “Why God Allows Evil” which starts on page 254 in “Exploring Philosophy: An Anthology” by Steven M. Cahn. This was also discussed in class on 9/15/16. In his argument Swinburne states that “An omnipotent God could have prevented this evil, and surely a perfectly good and omnipotent God would have done so. So why is there evil?”(Swinburne, 254).
He also refers to the cosmological argument to show that God is an all-powerful being who created the universe out of nothing. Furthermore, he claims that suffering in the world is moral in the sense that suffering inflicted on innocents is genuinely evil. Without a God, there would be no objective morals, thus, evil proves God’s existence, as things would not be considered good or evil without a God (Craig, p. 126). In conclusion, evil proves God’s existence and thus the question as to why God permits evil does not work to disprove His existence.
Questioning if God is not omnipotent, the entire idea of God creating the world can be called into question. Another issue is that if it is said that God is no longer entirely good there is the possibility to say that God has evil or bad intentions, and we should denounce him. Lastly, if one says that evil does not exist, then there is no possible way to separate those people who are considered to be deviants of society. This would mean that those who commit crimes that are evil in nature like murder and rape would be considered to be normal and acceptable.
This argument can be set up as following: 1. If God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, there is no evil in this world. 2. Obviously,
In this essay, I will set out to prove that Thomas Aquinas’ First Cause Argument does not show that God exists and the conclusion that God exists does not follow from the premises of the first cause argument. I do think that the conclusion is valid and could be sound/or has the potential to be, but the premises fail to provide the basis upon which to reach such a conclusion. Hence, I will be raising some objections to the premises and will try to disprove any counter-arguments that could be raised in its defense. This would be done by examining Aquinas’ First Cause Argument and trying to disprove it whilst countering arguments in its defense.
The debate of the existence of God has always been a controversial topic and has been going on for centuries. Till this day it is still a debate. We have people who strongly believe in God and others who questions his existence. Those who have strong faith will try to convince everyone who does not believe in God that he exits. They will try to come up with arguments to show he is real and good.