Nagel's Argument Analysis

1897 Words8 Pages

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

Open Document