If God exists and has the capability to be powerful, good, omniscient and omnipotent, why would he let evil be perpetrated? Is a God unable to suppress the evil or does he have no solution to problem of evil? The thesis posited by Mackie that evil exists and there is no God to stop the evil is still relevant to today. We still have wars, incurable diseases and struggles on this planet.
The argument states the existence of evil is impossible under the attributes of God. It is evident evil exists but it is not clear whether God exists. The purpose of Mackie’s and Plantinga’s argument is to prove whether or not God exist based on the existence of evil. Mackie does not agree on the existence of God and uses philosophy to prove it. He believes that there is no rational evidence that
This logical incompatibility between evil and God’s actuality can be made evident in two additional principles provided by Mackie. These are if something is omnipotent, it can do anything and if something is omnibenevolent it will eliminate as much evil as possible. Mackie claims God’s omnipotent characteristic is dependent on him being all powerful. If God is omnipotent than the subjection to limitations, such as the inevitability of evil, should not arise. This first premise is in relation to the second and third because if God is all powerful, wholly good and in existence, the product of his work, our world, should be a reflection of his being.
Atheism will be defined in the present day western sense as just not the lack of belief in a god, but the vindication about the non-existence of any gods, or spirits, supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are mystical naturalists, and as they believe, they do own a religion. Who is an Atheist?
Mackie says the only way to believe that evil exists, if you do believe that evil does in fact exist, is to either say God is not wholly good or not as omnipotent. The other possible outcome is to say that good is not opposed to the kind of evil that can exist or that an omnipotent
Therefore, God must exist so that the definition would be true. Anselm’s argument is based on this known definition of the concept of God alone. Descartes’ argument for the existence of God is based on his foundation of knowledge, logic. Humans have the idea in their minds of infinite perfection. Humans also have the idea of themselves as inferior to this idea as imperfect.
Dawkins replied to Lennox on his accusation that the principles of going from simple to complex is the belief of the atheist. By saying that if things were to go from simple to complex they would need explaining why. Lennox says that it makes a lot more sense to believe, that there is an eternal Logos and that the universe and its laws is derivative including the human mind form the Logos, it makes perfectly sense. More sense than to accept that the universe is just a simple fact. Dawkins replies that it makes a hell of a lot more sense to start with something simpler than to start with something more complex.
Such proofs include teleological and ontological. A proof is an unquestionable, factual statement that directs an argument to the final product and is based on a level of scientific factualness. The existence of the world is no guarantee for believing in the existence of a certain being (God). The cosmological and design only offer points and arguments towards the existence of God, but the
As shown above, God did create everything, so, if He did create all things, and He did not create evil, then evil must not be a thing (Augustine on Evil). This is an argument made by Greg Koukl. He has a Master’s Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics, a Master’s in Christian Apologetics, and is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University. His argument helps to further prove the points already made above, and really helps to explain the existence of evil. However, if evil is not a thing, then what could evil be, and how can it possibly exist?