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.
In “Evil and Omnipotence”, J.L Mackie argues that solutions provided for the problem of evil are implausible. Mackie claims that the problem of evil is God’s inability to be both omnipotent and omni-benevolent yet have evil exist. This contradiction cannot be physically disproven; and therefore, must be logically disproven. Mackie uses a novel method of providing solutions to this problem and elaborating on their lack of logic. In this paper, I will further explain the problem of evil, expand on the solution “Good cannot exist without evil,” and argue for Mackie’s view against this solution.
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!”
In this paper, I will begin by stating the Problem of Evil. Following this I will include two objections to the argument and why I find the argument to not be convincing. The Problem of Evil is an argument concerning the existence of God and why God cannot exist because of the presence of evil in the world. The argument begins by saying that God is both all-powerful and wholly good, and that evil exists in the world. However, these statements contradict each other, so all three cannot be true. The next statement is that there are no limits that can be placed on an all-powerful thing. Also, a wholly good being will eliminate evil as much as possible. If these two statements are true then an all-powerful, wholly good being is able to eliminate all evil in the world.
For those perplexed by the overabundance of evil in the world, religion has always provided an avenue for hope, and people throughout history have sought God for understanding, and reconciliation. If God, by definition, is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, how do we account for the immense suffering, evil, and injustice that exists in the world? Moreover, a world with an astronomical amount of pain and unnecessary suffering? Could such evil exist and the existence of the aforementioned God still be plausible? To address the problem of evil, philosophers and theologians have put forth theodicies,
One very humble and wise man stated, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that”- Martin Luther King, Jr. The desire of inflicting pain while fueled with hatred can take an individual a long way. To interfere in this destructing path an external source must shine a light on the issue. In the genocidal novel Night by elie wiesel, is a recollection of his experience without the shining light coming until the end. Wiesel titled his book night as within it it contains information on the illusion of night, his experience in the dark, and the problems of evil.
Part XI begins with Philo’s breakdown of what are, in his perspective, the four causes of natural evil. These causes, in Philo’s opinion, disprove the existence of an omnipotent and infinitely good god, for if god was all-good and all-powerful, then these grounds would not exist in our universe. INSERT CITATION Once he gives his reasoning for how these causes disprove an omnipotent and infinitely good god, Philo then states what he believes these four causes to be.
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.
There have been an innumerable amount of arguments for the existence of God for hundreds of years. Some have become much more popular due to their merit, and their ability to stay relevant through changing times. Two arguments in particular that have been discussed for a very long time are the ontological and cosmological arguments. Each were proposed in the period of the high middle ages by members of the Roman Catholic Church. They each have been used extensively by many since their introduction. However, one of the arguments is superior ant that is the ontological argument. The Ontological argument is the stronger of the two due to the fact that it is based in pure logic and reasoning.
Mackie’s argument from queerness goes as follows. It consists of two different arguments, a metaphysical one and an epistemological one. Both arguments conclude that moral realism entails the existence of things that are incredibly implausible. Therefore moral realism is itself implausible. First I will look at the metaphysical argument.
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? Is a God unable to suppress the evil or does he have no solution to problem of evil? The thesis posited by Mackie that evil exists and there is no God to stop the evil is still relevant to today. We still have wars, incurable diseases and struggles on this planet.
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.
“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.
This paper will discuss the problem of evil. In the first part, I will discuss Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s atheist stance and William Lane Craig’s theist stance on the problem of evil. In the final part of this paper, I will argue that Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s argument is stronger.
A lot of arguments have been known to prove or disprove the existence of God, and the Problem of Evil is one of them. The Problem of Evil argues that it is impossible to have God and evil existing in the same world. Due to ideal characteristics of God, evil should not have a chance to exist and make human suffer. In this essay, I will examine the argument for the Problem of Evil, a possible theodicy against the argument, and reply to the theodicy.