Analysis Of George Nagel's Argument Against The Existence Of God

William Rowe addresses the problem of evil through an examination of the relationship between the existence of evil with an omnibenevolent, omniscient creator. His argument stems from the notion that because human and animal suffering is so intense, an atheist is rational in their belief and that the co-existence of evil and God is unlikely.

The question that is asked time and time again is whether or not god exists. It is evident that people hold different beliefs. It is evident that through some of the beliefs of J.L. Mackie that it could be argued that God does not actually exist. I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist. At the beginning of the article, Mackie states that the initial issue with God’s existence is that, “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, Paragraph 3). If god is such a pure and good being, then he should be able to combat all evil.

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.

Louise M. Antony argues an important ethical concern in her article, “Good minus God”. Can a person do good deeds without God? Arguing from an atheistic point of view, Antony believes that a person does not need to depend on God in order to complete good deeds. I agree, whether Christian or Atheist, all can perform good deeds, but who ultimately defines good versus evil? Antony subjectively defines morality and uses nature as her source. In contrast, I believe God created all things and defines good and evil through His creation and Word. And finally, as followers of God, our motivation for accomplishing good comes from our love for all God has done for us. Imagine a world without order, chaotic without a specific guide to right or wrong–a world without 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.

The discourse between Socrates and Euthyphro clearly depicts a dilemma when it comes to the question on holiness, moral goodness and the will of God. While Euthyphro is of the opinion that what is dear to the gods is holy, and what is not dear to them is unholy, (Indiana University 6) Socrates seems to be of a different opinion. This discourse occurs at a time when there is a belief in many gods in Greece, each god having different duties. The gods are also known to disagree on a number of issues. Socrates, in trying to counter Euthyphro’s idea he opines that since the gods disagree, they must have different concepts of what is ethical and what is not. Socrates clearly states, in support of this opinion that that according to Euthyphro’s account,

In Dialogues concerning Natural religion Hume explores whether or not faith is rational. as a result of Hume is AN philosopher (i.e. somebody WHO thinks that every one information comes through experience), he thinks that a belief is rational given that it's sufficiently supported by experiential proof. therefore the question is absolutely, is there enough proof within the world to permit North American country to infer AN infinitely sensible, wise, powerful, excellent God? Hume doesn't raise whether or not we are able to rationally prove that God exists, however rather whether or not we are able to rationally return to any conclusions regarding God's nature. He asserts that the primary question is on the far side doubt; the latter is ab initio undecided.

Over the years, opinions on God have changed. Some people believed that God is terrifying and vengeful while others disagreed saying that He is loving and accepting of all. Jonathan Edwards was a Calvinist, who argued that unless one never sins, he or she is most likely doomed to hell. Edwards believed that humans are powerless in comparison to the power of God. In “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards, the author achieves his purpose of arguing that in order to be saved from an afterlife in hell, one must ask for forgiveness and accept Christ, through the uses of intense imagery, a terrifying tone, and understandable metaphors.

The logical argument concerning the problem of evil stems from two propositions that seem difficult to hold true at the same time: there exists an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God and there are great amounts of suffering and evil in the world. This argument concludes that since there is moral and natural evil in the world, that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God cannot exist since an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God would not create evil, or would at least seek to destroy it. To argue against this, the free-will defense is used. The free-will defense is successful as it provides a reason for moral evil, but it fails to address natural evil. However, it is still logically consistent to believe in

The problem of evil questions how to reconcile the existence of evil with a God whom is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. If this were true, God would know about evil, would be able to do something, and would want to do something. Yet there is still evil today. The logical problem of evil attempts to prove that the existence of any evil contradicts the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God. If this God exists, then evil does not. However, evil does exist. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist. The evidential problem of evil states that since evil does exists, evidence alone is incompatible with a perfect God, and thus negates the possibility of God 's existence. There exist

In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he outlines the different scenarios in which one is responsible for her actions.  There is, however, a possible objection which raises the possibility that nobody is responsible for their actions.  Are we responsible for some of our actions after all?  If so, under what circumstances?  Based on an evaluation of Aristotle’s arguments and the objection that stands against it, people are responsible for voluntary actions and involuntary actions whose circumstances or particulars they themselves have caused.

“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. On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it.

A lot of arguments have been known to prove or disprove the existence of God, and the Problem of Evil is one of them. The Problem of Evil argues that it is impossible to have God and evil existing in the same world. Due to ideal characteristics of God, evil should not have a chance to exist and make human suffer. In this essay, I will examine the argument for the Problem of Evil, a possible theodicy against the argument, and reply to the theodicy.

John Stuart Mill wrote that we cannot call God good for he is a perfect being and the word ‘good’ is a word that describes the highest form of human morality. I believe this statement to be true in a sense. Good is a term that has a relative meaning when describing things. Good is from a perspective of the individual. In this paper I will be arguing that the word ‘good’ in the phrase “God is good” is in relation to the opinion of the person describing God, and that it cannot be known to our reality if God is objectively good.

Then his wife said to him, “Are you still unshaken in your integrity? Curse God and die!” But he answered, “. . . If we accept good from God, shall we not accept evil?” (Job 2:9-10)