Licon's Argument To The Existence Of God And Evil

choices.” You freedom cannot be damaged by any power other than God. Humans can always work out their

Peter van Inwagen argument entitled “Free Will Defense,” is a theodicy because it attempts to show why God would allow evil in the world as opposed to a defense which would try to explain, logically, how evil could exist in the world with an all-loving an all-powerful God. Peter van Inwagen purposed that, yes, God is all-loving and all-powerful, and because he is all-loving, he allows for humans to make their own decisions even if these decisions lead to evil and pain. I find this to be an extremely satisfying response. It is very plausible that an all-powerful being could and would, in some way, relinquish control as a way to show and practice his love. Autonomy is good, granting free will results in autonomy, therefore granting free will

The incompatibility thesis states that determinism is incompatible with any significant sense of freewill. Therefore, having free will is a necessary condition for the ascription of moral responsibility. In other words, free will dictates the level of responsibility we claim for our actions. If outside forces were to be in control of the choices we make, then we cannot be held responsible for our actions. However, if we have total freedom over the choices we make, then we certainly must claim responsibility over our actions. In Paul Holbach’s essay, “The Illusion of Freewill”, Holbach presents the argument that free will is simply an illusion that the human mind has created for us. He makes the assertion that

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.

According to Samuel Clark’s argument, things exist the way they are in order to show the existence of God. All things need an explanation for their existence according to Aristotle. For instance, why the earth is spherical, why different places experience different climatic patters, why different geographical areas have different time zones and why do creatures that are in found in different places have features that enable them survive in such conditions. These considerations lead to a belief that there must be a cause for the universe (Rowe 67). At the same time, this cause needs to be extremely perfect for the universe to align itself in its current manner. Something has to come from something. This is because nothing produces nothing; hence

Determinists say “every action is determined by prior events”, and metaphysical libertarian argue that “people are free and morally responsible”; compatibilists join in the debate and interpose, “Free will is not at odds with determinism” (lecture 13). No matter what, I hope people have free will. I still think what I think and act as I think. I still doubt things outside my mind but not my ability to think freely and act freely. As D.H. Law Lawrence puts it, “Men are freest when they are most unconscious of freedom” (p256 text). Or we can say that men are are freest when they are most unconscious of whether they are determined or they have free

In his argument Swinburne states that “An omnipotent God could have prevented this evil, and surely a perfectly good and omnipotent God would have done so. So why is there evil?”(Swinburne, 254). In theory, he thinks that if God exists then evil should not, but it does. So he creates and argues a theodicy to show that God and evil can exist at the same time. He comes up with the “Free Will Theodicy” which states that humans are the cause of evil, not God.

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,

Hume (textbook, p. 305) develops, in detail, what is presumably the most grounded contention against the presence of God in a valid deductive argument. He states, “Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” In a similar vein: If God exists, he is all-knowing, omnipotent, and ethically flawless. If God were all-knowing, God would know about all the terrible occasions that occur in our reality. If God were omnipotent, God would have the capacity to do something. Furthermore, if God were ethically flawless, then unquestionably God would want to do something about all the evil and suffering. But, yet there are still countless instances of evil that fills our world. Concluding, since God does not prevent or eliminate all unnecessary suffering, logically, God does not exist. Hume concludes that if you want to make sense of all the evil randomness of the universe with the sense of God’s attributes, “You must prove these pure, unmixed, and uncontrollable attributes from the present mixed and confused phenomena, and from these alone. A hopeful undertaking!”

“Freedom is the power to choose our own chains” (Rousseau). Rousseau discusses the idea that freedom gives us enough power to pick who or what has control over us, which is an idea that is continually presented in the novel A Separate Peace by John Knowles. When in a position to choose, people will strive to lack personal control as a way to relieve their physical or mental pain.

“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.

The debate regarding whether or not humans are ultimately responsible for their actions and decisions has grown rapidly in the twenty-first century, as this debate was mainly a theological and philosophical debate, rather than a scientific one, and mainly a debate restricted to experts and scholars. The two opposing theories which create such a debate are Libertarianism and Determinism. Libertarianism proposes the argument that free choice is true, and since it is true, complete causal determinism must be false and does not exist. This view accepts the psychological image and rejects the mechanistic image of one’s actions and decisions. The psychological image, also known as the ‘common sense view’ looks at the mind, feelings, and emotions,

One might object to the Problem of Evil by giving a theodicy. A theodicy is basically a justification that explains why God allows evil things to happen even though he is all-PGK. In addition, a theodicy is on the “God is all-PGK” side because it might prove that evil is needed in this world in intention of God, and evil is, of course, under control of God. One theodicy is free will. Free will is a gift from God. All creatures in this world have an ability to do whatever it is willing to do. As an illustration, a mother uses drugs, yells at her son every day, forces him to do what he does not want to, and also violently abuses him. One day, that boy kills his mother. That is murder, and that is evil. God might see that, but he let it happen due to two possibilities. First, killing his mother is what the boy needs to do to free his life, and God sees that as a solution for that boy. That is the boy’s free will. If God ever stops the son, there is no longer free will. Second, the mother needs to be removed out of this world because she is evil, and she is wrongful in treating her son. Here we can see that God intervenes to help the boy decide to stop the

According to John Locke, it is not the Will of a human being that makes him or her free. The Will is simply a faculty of freedom, insofar as a person who expresses Free Will is simply acting freely in accordance with his or her desires. For Locke, It is the person who is free; he proclaims that “free will” is a misleading phrase, whereby “freedom” and the human “will” are two separate categories which must be clearly defined in order to be properly accounted for. A Person who is free may do what he or she wills.

Taylor’s philosophy and view on determinism, free will and moral responsibility reflects the libertarian philosophic position. He attaches large importance to free will and free choice of a person. Taylor asserts that “certain events (namely, human choices) are not completely determined by preceding events; rather, they are caused by the agent of the choice (the person doing the choosing)” (Free Will). This view differs from that of Blatchford, Schlick and Hospers who deny free choice concluding that everything is determined in our decisions and actions. But real free will, according to Taylor, appears in case of strong evaluations which determine important actions and decisions. Taylor, as well as Campbell, supposes that a person who makes acts has free choice to act in another way. And, “according to our definition, the act was freely performed. So not only would such acts be free, but they are also acts for which someone could be held morally responsible” (Free Will). So, Taylor assumes that moral responsibility is reflected in free choice of a person. I support his point of view and think that not only the laws of heredity and nature determine our behaviour – this approach decreases the importance of rational factors. In other words, I adhere with the libertarian view which “maintains that there are acts which are not completely determined by preceding events and the laws of nature, but which are not just random” (Free