As a counter argument it is faulty, and ultimately fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the traditional God exists and has an adequate reason for evil. In a court of law, the burden of proof falls onto the prosecution to prove their claim beyond a reasonable doubt while the defense counters their position by establishing some doubt. The prosecution can be seen as Craig as he claims the existence of a God, whereas Sinnott-Armstrong’s atheism only exists in relation to theism. Atheism is a response to theism but theism is an idea in itself, independent of atheism. In other words, without theism atheism would not exist, as such without a claim made by the Crown the defense is not needed.
God can't guarantee that some creatures won't sometimes choose to act badly. God can't guarantee that that world won't contain evil. All evil in the world is the result of free actions by created creatures and there is no possible world God could have created that contains a better balance of both moral good and evil. The Free Will Defense concludes that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good, and God creates free men who sometimes preform morally evil actions is not contradictory or necessarily false. "It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil.
One of the weaknesses of the Aquinas argument is that Aquinas contradicts himself when he rejects the possibility that the universe is unlimited. Then he argues that God has no end. It also states that everything is conditional, but God is unconditional. (Aquinas
It does not make any religious claim nor theological claim. Christian experience of God existing in threefold form is a topic of high philosophical interest. In a broader perspective, there seems to have two extreme approaches towards the Trinity: neglecting the trinity arguing that it is self contradictory doctrine (as a result rejection) and avoiding any rational understanding of it stating that it is a mystery
There is an argument which he calls “Basic Argument” which proves that humans can not be morally responsible for their actions. No matter if determinism is true or false Strawson still holds the view on validity of the Basic Argument. The Basic Argument is as follows. Nothing can be causa sui ( meaning nothing can be the cause of itself.) In order to be truly morally responsible for one 's actions one would have to be the cuase of itself,at least in certain crucial mental respects.
The first question, what is prime reality – the really real? There is no God because evidence proves nothing exist. If nothing exist then God cannot exist. So, prove God exist in the midst of nothing. The second question, how do we know what is right and wrong?
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
Wolff claims that Spinoza confuses attributes with essential determinations, modes with attributes and being from another, and finally confuses substance with being from itself.19Wolff argues that the Spinozistic concept of "mode" is vague precisely because he does not explicitly define what it meant to be conceived through another. This is especially true since beyond modes and attributes it is impossible to conceive of substance, additionally problematizing his notion of substance.20 Since Spinoza's terminology is so vague his concluding substance monism does not necessarily follow. Since substance monism does not legitimately follow, Wolff does not have to be subject to the view that human beings are subject to the same necessary causal relationship to this substance. By problematizing Spinoza's substance monism, Wolff is not subject to Lange's third criterion for
If you agree that the faculty of judgment comes from God, and that God is a non-deceiver then you would also believe that the end would be impossible for the faculty of judgment to to be wrong. Is it even possible for anything from God not be the truth or