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?
Swinburne first writes of the “freewill defense” which is because of the ability for human beings to choose morality there is good and evil within the world (Swinburne, pg.83). The author objects to the freewill argument. The first main argument by Swinburne which is the response if God is omnipotence or with unlimited power why could not he just restrict our morality to good characteristics in his likeliness? (Swinburne, pg.83-84) The second argument in “Is There a God?” which adds to the first argument is could God have dwindled our ability to be evil and granted us greater goodness while still maintaining freewill? (Swinburne, pg.84) Theist would disagree.
He discusses the possibility of this occurring through natural theology, or contemplation, but decides that this is not possible due to the “ignorance and stupidity of the people” (sec. 6, pg. 29, para 1). He continues on to refute other possible explanations, before concluding that it occurs as a natural result of the flattery system; humans place one God above all others and say that he is omnipresent and infinite (sec. 6, pg.
I. Descartes – Evil Genius Problem A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DESCARTES’ THEORY The Doubts about the Evil Genius Doubt 1. Does the evil genius exist? Although it may seem trivial to question the hypothetical being, Descartes’ arguments are also phrased cunningly to avoid questions. While Descartes is clearly considering even the most remote possibilities in his method of doubt, all he offers is the claim that such a being could exist. However, this is not seen as a solid basis upon which absolute doubt, required by Descartes, can be built.
Philo concludes that for those who already believe in an omnipotent and all-good god, these four causes are not enough to invalidate their beliefs. INSERT CITATION He says this because all four of his causes can be dispelled under the assumption that there is some divine explanation that reconciles god’s goodness with the evil in the world. However, coming from an unbiased perspective, Philo says that we certainly cannot infer the existence of a benevolent god when these causes of natural evil are taken into account. In fact, if we do attempt to divulge god’s moral attributes from the state of the universe, then Philo concludes that the only proper deduction we can draw is that god is neither good nor is he evil, but rather he is entirely indifferent to the principles of morality altogether – in essence, god is morally neutral. INSERT
Faith does not reduce the autonomy of reason, but reminds people who is at work, causing the events that we attempt to break down with reason: God of Israel. He then goes on to explain how Jesus’ death on the cross holds so much weight in the teachings of philosophers and how it stumps many who ponder its details. “Man cannot grasp how death could be the source of life and love; yet to reveal the mystery of his saving plan God has chosen precisely that which reason considers "foolishness" and a "scandal" (John Paul pg. 21). The main justification that Paul provides is the truth about the deeper meaning of the Cross of Christ.
Also, that is created and administered by omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect goodness. The logical problem of evil is when evil exists, and the world is hurting from it, that it becomes more a challenge to have the beliefs of a god or a perfect god even. God is all-knowing, knows all the good and bad that happens throughout the world. If God is all-knowing or all-powerful, God should be authorized to do something or change the ways of all the evil.
How can you best describe the so-called problem of evil? The problem with evil is an argument that is meant to prove that God does not exist or it is more likely than not that God does not exist. Ernest Nagel believes that one of the most important characteristics of atheists is the belief that, “there are no good reason to believe that god exists” (Velasquez, 2014p.260) based on the existence of evil in the world. David Hume’s argument on the problem with evil is that man can only know what he has experienced so if we take the idea of such a god out of our minds and then were forced to look at our world we would never have reason to believe that a, “supreme, intelligence, benevolent, powerful god exists”. Hume’s expresses this argument in two different ways one is a deductive argument called the, “logical problem with evil which shows that god necessarily does not exist” (Velasquez, 2014p.262).
Augustine, in his work The Perfection of Human Righteousness, combatted the heresy of Pelagianism as described by Caelestius in his treatise, The Definitions Attributed to Caelestius. Following Pelagius, Caelestius by logic and Scripture argued that the Fall did not destroy man’s natural capability to do right. Caelestius argued that God made us free to do the good and thus we all have the power not to sin, and that both the devil and Adam’s original sin are unable to destroy this power. As proof Caelestius gave examples of Old Testament saints who he claimed lived holy lives. Augustine refutes Caelestius’ ideas by using Scripture to show that we are righteous only by the grace of God through Jesus Christ.
The one weakness of Anslem argument is that he didn 't give enough evidences for God existence in reality. Another weakness posed by St Aquinas, as Anselm states God is "that which nothing greater can be conceived" then to understand God in this way is to be equal to him, which Anselm is human and cannot be equal to God. The one strength of Aquinas argument: Aquinas was influential philosopher concerning the different people who have different concepts of God, and how they could understand and accept his argument. Aquinas also presented five ways as evidences to argue the existence of God. One of the weaknesses of the Aquinas argument is that Aquinas contradicts himself when he rejects the possibility that the universe is unlimited.
Whether or not these fresh perspectives are right or wrong, I agree with Piper that “muddying the waters” will do more hurt than help, and that a clear, complete, and concise writing of this difficult-to-grasp shift in doctrine would be wildly beneficial. I don’t believe one must be a theologian to have an acute understanding of the nature of the gospel, and am overall disappointed with the inaccuracy of speech and unclear logic within the writings of both