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.
And how does free will influence evil? 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.
Arguments Revolving Around This Theory 1. An interesting conversation between Gassendi and Descartes Gassendi: “There is just one point I am not clear about, namely why you did not make a simple and brief statement to the effect that you were regarding your previous knowledge as uncertain so that you could later single out what you found to be true. Why instead did you consider everything as false, which seems more like adopting a new prejudice than relinquishing an old one? This strategy made it necessary for you to convince yourself by imagining a deceiving God or some evil demon who tricks us, whereas it would surely have been sufficient to cite the darkness of the human mind or the weakness of our nature.” Descartes: “Suppose a person had a basket full of apples and, being worried that some of the apples were rotten, wanted to take out the rotten ones to prevent the rot spreading. How would he proceed?
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
Rather than seeing into one mind that might be presumably biased, one is able to glean knowledge from two minds that disagree on one subject. This debate seems to have left Utilitarianism in the dust as a wicked doctrine just as Warren described. It was obvious which contender was more studied, more well-rounded, and more apt to do homework, despite what the opponent would accuse. Perhaps the main reason why Warren was able to walk away from a four night debate so successfully, was because he relied on the pure word of God. Another instance and example in showing that it is divinely
While he may provide light-hearted examples of deductive reasoning, Kalanithi also uses this rhetorical strategy to deliver controversial arguments and profound realizations. For instance, Kalanithi proposes the disputed claim that since “There is no proof of God; therefore, it is unreasonable to believe in God” (168). Through deductions, Kalanithi is able to present a sensitive topic and explain the reasoning behind his claim, creating support for the argument, as well as a more receptive environment. He also presents an epiphany through this strategy: the connection between
When discussing the philosophy of God’s plausible existence, several well composed arguments are presented, from Anselm’s Ontological Argument based the definition of God, to the Teleolgical argument grounded in the idea that a complex creation demands an intelligent creator; additionally, many debate that there is no need for a rational explanation as we are required in the nature of belief to take ‘leap of a faith’ regarding the existence of God. While each side offers valuable insight into this dilemma, I would argue that neither fully proves the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God. However, as I will discuss in the rest of the paper, the Teleolgical Argument and Kierkengaard’s faith eliminates dread argument when combined can reasonably provide evidence for the existence of God. Out of the five major opinions for God existence in regards to reason, the Teleolgical argument does the best job of not just proving a God exists but
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.
McCloskey’s main objection to theism is the presence of evil in the world and he raises it several times. The language of this claim seems to imply that it is an example of the logical form of the problem. To best answer why there is evil; both physical and natural can be done by saying there is a God. He has given us freewill. Humans have the ability to stop there from being evil but choose not to.
H.J. McCloskey’s article “On Being an Atheist” he argues the existence of God and we should abandoned all “proofs” of this idea. In approaching the question of God’s existence, we cannot prove God or that other things exist. Proof is a certainty and without a shadow of doubt. However, it is possible I could be wrong, but I don’t believe I am.