This logical incompatibility between evil and God’s actuality can be made evident in two additional principles provided by Mackie. These are if something is omnipotent, it can do anything and if something is omnibenevolent it will eliminate as much evil as possible. Mackie claims God’s omnipotent characteristic is dependent on him being all powerful. If God is omnipotent than the subjection to limitations, such as the inevitability of evil, should not arise. This first premise is in relation to the second and third because if God is all powerful, wholly good and in existence, the product of his work, our world, should be a reflection of his being.
In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, Mackie explains that evil is only a problem for those who believe in God. Mackie further says that God being omnipotent and wholly good while evil exists is contradictory. This raises questions about how could a wholly good being exist but also have evil around and why would it exist if God could allow evil to happen. Mackie then goes into explain solutions so that “omnipotence,” “wholly good,” and “evil” stop contradicting each other. Mackie says the only way to believe that evil exists, if you do believe that evil does in fact exist, is to either say God is not wholly good or not as omnipotent.
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?
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
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.
Anselm’s argument is based on this known definition of the concept of God alone. Descartes’ argument for the existence of God is based on his foundation of knowledge, logic. Humans have the idea in their minds of infinite perfection. Humans also have the idea of themselves as inferior to this idea as imperfect. For humans to have the idea of infinite perfection, there must be truth in the reason for them having this idea.
He According to him, “every clear and distinct perception is surely something, and hence cannot come from nothing . . . it must necessarily have God for its author” (42). 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).
This essay will explain Mackie’s argument against the theist’s three premises. It will also cover Plantinga’s argument of free will and transworld depravity. Lastly, it will discuss Walsch’s free will theodicy and how it reflects on evil. The argument states the existence of evil is impossible under the attributes of God.
As shown above, God did create everything, so, if He did create all things, and He did not create evil, then evil must not be a thing (Augustine on Evil). This is an argument made by Greg Koukl. He has a Master’s Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics, a Master’s in Christian Apologetics, and is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University. His argument helps to further prove the points already made above, and really helps to explain the existence of 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.
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.
All of the philosophers that we've studied so far have made some valid arguments concerning the existence, or non-existence of God. If I had to be swayed by an opinion for God's existence, or non-existence it would have to be by William Paley's argument. Paley's analogy is strong because of his metaphor of the watch to explain the universe and the existence of an intelligent designer. The weak part of this analogy is that the watchmaker as evidence can be produced in the physical form; the universe maker as evidence cannot be produced in physical form.
The Bible consists of thousands of people who have had direct contact with Jesus and God. Other people have also claimed to have experienced God. Joan of Arc was a young woman who led the armies of France who claimed she heard voices from God. Constantine was an Emperor who converted to Christianity. He outlawed slavery, crucifixion and made Sunday a day of rest.
For this disputation, I had the pleasure of arguing against the topic of be it resolved that you can convince a non-believer to affirm the existence of God using philosophical arguments. As the opposing side, Sarah and I counter argued the following: the argument from motion, the ontological argument, Pascal’s Wager, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument. The argument from motion argues that it is only possible to experience that which exists, and people experience God, therefore God must exist; however it can be counter argued that since faith cannot be demonstrated or experienced, as it is unseen, God cannot exist.