Evil is relative. As humans, we are not strictly good or evil. A response should not define a person, especially when society has the final say on whether a person is “good” or “bad”. People resort to evil to describe something they cannot rationalize. There is no reason for it, so many people turn to God, saying that evil was a form of punishment for sin.
Mackie’s argument highlights the inconsistency that arises between the premises of God’s existence. Mackie proposes the problem of evil to be that “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; [God exists]; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, 1955, p.200). Mackie states these four propositions cannot coexist, therefore, if evil exists, God cannot and conversely, if God is real evil must be
Leibniz keeps that an all things are good, powerful God had made the world and that, consequently, the world necessity be faultless. When human existences observe something as incorrect or evil, it is simply because they do not know the final good that the so known as evil is destined to help. Alike Candide, Pangloss is not a realistic character; to some extent, he is a one-sided, overstated image of a certain substantial of philosopher whose character is close from his philosophy. Pangloss Supporter of optimism. He upholds that the whole thing happens for the best and for adequate
It is a human desire to, when overwhelmed by the complexity of the world, to worship something. “Science emancipates us from that desire”, Dawkins
Epicurus questions how and why evil exists if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. He understands that God cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving if evil exists since s/he would then be limited in power and love. This means that God either does not have the power to stop evil or God is no so loving and will allow evil in the world. I will analyze Epicurus’ question through John Hick’s theodicy of soul making.
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. And that it just makes a lot more sense than Lennox’s opinion.
Many people question how God exists in a world full of so much evil, while other people have no problem accepting the reality of an omniscient (all knowing), omnibenevolent (all good), and omnipotent (all powerful) God. According to John Hick, God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. Hick’s version of God allows the existence of evil for a specific purpose. Process- Relational theologist believe in a God of love, power, and relatedness (Mesle, 25).
The problem of evil can be stated with just one question: if God is omnibenevolent, why does evil exist? Aquinas tried to explain this by saying that because God is all good, he allows evil in the world to produce something good out of it. This explanation is confusing and raises more questions than it answers. If God is omnibenevolent, why did he let the evils of the Holocaust to occur? What good was produced from the genocide of millions of
He believes that right is opposed by the lie, truth is opposed by falsehood and life is opposed by death. According to the textbook, "At the beginning of the world, the good spirit of Ahuramazda was opposed by the evil spirit (50). " They believed that humans played a role in this cosmic struggle between good and evil, and that the God gives them the power to choose between right
This not only applies to adults but also children, which can be seen in the novel. Golding “...asks how superior we are to savages and he points to the superficiality of our civilization; indeed it seems to be powerless against the innate brutality of man, against his fear which is in fact against the innate brutality of man, against his fear which is in fact the expression of the evil that pervades the world.” (Michot). Humans “good” is just superficial and isn't truly what they are. Inside they are just savages that are trying to conform to society's norm, but inside they are selfish and evil.
Aquinas approaches natural evil in a different way, because he views it as less of a punishment and more of an opportunity for goodness; “many good things would be missed if God permitted no evil to exist” (Aquinas, 1917, 1A, 49, 1). Sometimes a seemingly evil event, such as an earthquake, inspires people around the world to come together and help the country in need; therefore, the evil created an opportunity for goodness and unity, which is essentially God’s ultimate plan. When viewing evil through Aquinas’ approach it is notable that God is almost praised for including evil in our world, because it allows humanity to distinguish a difference between good and bad; therefore, humanity has a greater chance of appreciating the goodness in the world. Because of this, God’s existence is not only justified, but evil is shown as an essential part in making the world a peaceful place, rather than the initial idea that evil is a problem for the
Response to “On Being an Atheist” Ida Hart PHIL 201 – B30 LUO Dr. David Beck McCloskey’s article, “On Being an Atheist” contains arguments that he uses to explain Atheism, the non-existence of God. Using the claims made by theists and attempting to taint the character and nature of the Christian God, he points out what he calls several defects of the arguments. In his introduction he offers a brief reminder to fellow atheist stating the grounds and the inadequacies of these grounds for theism. He later calls them “proofs”, alleging that the proofs do not provide adequate justification for believing that God exists. This only proves that he is among the many that choose to use the arguments in the wrong way.
McCloskey makes a statement that in order, “to get proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design or purpose are needed” (McCloskey, 1968). He holds his standard of indisputability to a high claim. In order for McCloskey to ask a theist for indisputable evidence of the existence of a Creator, I believe that there must be evidence from his own theory that is indisputable. This reminds me of a class I had in community college that was about Critical Thinking. My professor told me that I could no argue my religious foundation because it was based off of opinion and not known fact.
In life, people tend to classify ideas into good and evil based on their views and beliefs. The novel, Bless Me, Ultima by Rudolfo Anaya, portrays the life a six-year old boy named Antonio living around the time of World War II. Antonio faces many challenges in life as he grows into adulthood. In order to see what is good and evil, Antonio sees things as good if it agrees with his beliefs and sees things as evil if something threatens his beliefs. Many people in life think like Antonio, if people’s beliefs are agreed upon, they see it as good and if people beliefs are contradicted, it is seen as evil.
Everything around us is built of our faith in our senses, and our faith in other people. Without faith we are surrounded by the fear of the known, every neighbour could be planning our death, our senses could be simulated by some machine; and without faith in God, for many people can be the difference between bearing the evil of the world and slipping into the world of oblivion and chaos. Yet is this faith in God rational or not? Mackie thinks not, in his essay “Evil and Omnipotence” he uses the problem of evil in the world to expose the irrationality of God. He shows how, the contradicts of an Omni God makes the belief in such a being irrational.