According to the logical problem of evil, God is an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being. Yet, evil exist all around us. Since Mackie is an atheist, this is a contradiction he debates. How can a perfect God allow evil in the world? And how does free will influence evil?
Descartes also offers some doubt into the belief that God exists, for he claims that, “I can attach existence to God, even though no God exists” (44). He raises the idea that his thoughts do not entail existence, however, he claims that existence is inseparable from God because he cannot think of God as anything other than existence. As a result, he concludes that, “the necessity of the thing itself, namely the existence of God, forces me to think this” (44). Here, it seems to me that Descartes is implying the second half of the Cartesian circle, that God existence forces him to think that is distinctly and clearly
This part of the argument I would agree with the most, as when you try to prove that something indescribable exists you will fail as it cannot be described and instead are required to have faith. Let me explain what I mean: The whole purpose of these arguments is to prove that an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God exists, and according to the Judeo-Christian belief this God is also indescribable. Something that cannot be described cannot be fully proven to exists; therefore, in order to believe that God exists it will take a ‘leap of faith.’ The greatest strength of this argument is also its greatest weakness, as this leap of faith cannot without a shadow of a doubt prove that God
JL Mackie was persuasive in his argument by showing that belief in an almighty God is not rational. He proves this by posing the problem of evil. According to JL Mackie, if God exists and is omniscient, omnipotent, and good then evil would not exist. However, evil exists in this world, sometimes in the form of undeserved suffering (diseases that affect humans, earthquakes, famines ...) and others perpetrated by man (murders, wars ...). If God exists and has the capability to be powerful, good, omniscient and omnipotent, why would he let evil be perpetrated?
To conclude, there is little reason to believe that any other form of resurrection other than literal exists through Van Inwagen’s arguments. The causal chain reflects the patterns of nature and human form. Once a line is broken in the chain it cannot be reformed, at least in the same way it existed before. Since God created that chain he is also bound by its contingency. Further, the idea of free will presents any exact replication of an action unless it is continued by the original agent of said action.
For me, although the objection is reasonable, I still think the Pascal’s response is stronger. Belief is not decision, because people can not just decided to believe something, they believe in something for a logical and rational reasons. In other words, believe in God by making a decision that people get infinite gains in life is a bet, because this method is not useful to let
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.
It is Philo who reveals the unmendable gaps in the design argument against its main supporter, Cleanthes. However, Philo does not disprove God’s existence in his efforts to criticise the design argument. This is evident because Philo himself states his belief. By revealing the falsity of proving God’s existence through the argument from design, the reader of can conclude that the questions of God’s existence cannot be answered through human experience and reasoning. In Part II of Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume introduces the idea of argument from design through Cleanthes, who states,
Critical Analyses of St. Anselm’s argument for the Existence of God and Douglas Gasking’s argument for the Non-Existence of God. Arguments against St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God St. Anselm begins with a definition of God, argues that an existent God is superior to a non-existent God and concludes that God must exist in reality, for his non-existence would contradict the definition of God itself. The argument does not seem plausible to an unbiased person, even at the very first reading. It seems as if not all aspects of the question under scrutiny have been considered. The basic assumption, on which the entire argument stands, that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined can seem doubtful to a person who doubts the existence of God, for if one doubts that there is a being than which no greater can be conceived, then he may also be skeptical if any person has thoughts about the same being, whose existence itself is doubtful.
He cites Ephesians 2:3 which states, we are now born deserving God’s anger, with an injured nature so that our will is unable to keep us from sin except for the grace of God. Our defective state is punishment because of Adam’s free choice that made humans sinful. Therefore, we are either unable to will or unable to know how to do the right any more. Augustine argues that we are no longer free to choose right and wrong, because we are slaves to sin. Freedom can only be re-attained through God, through Whom, by grace, we shall be free indeed.