The Argument For The Problem Of 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).

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 evidential problem of evil is a complication of deciding if evil does exist and to what length. As well if there are different kinds of evil, how much evil there is, and can the evil be shared. With the reality of evil, it helps creates evidence in contrast to the existence of God. Also, this attempt to show that, once everything is put aside, it can help support of the existence of God. Also, that is created and administered by omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect goodness.

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

He cites Ephesians 2:3 which states, we are now born deserving God’s anger, with an injured nature so that our will is unable to keep us from sin except for the grace of God. Our defective state is punishment because of Adam’s free choice that made humans sinful. Therefore, we are either unable to will or unable to know how to do the right any more. Augustine argues that we are no longer free to choose right and wrong, because we are slaves to sin. Freedom can only be re-attained through God, through Whom, by grace, we shall be free indeed.

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.

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.

Anyone/thing that is not in the purest form is hateful in the sight of god and is therefore not pure a “deviant’’ (Wyndham 18). Throughout the novel the waknukian society moves father away from perfection due to their prejiduceness against “deviants’’, which creates fear, Isolation and anger. Waknukians are easily influenced by religious beliefs. These beliefs teach them to fear anyone/thing not normal. Fear manipulated the society into thinking normal meant good and ‘’deviant’’ meant evil.

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.

He also stated that “For since I know that my own nature is very weak and limited, whereas the nature of God is immense, incomprehensible and infinite, I also know without more ado that he is capable of countless things whose causes are beyond my knowledge”. Descartes believed that it is his mind that prevents him from understanding why God gave him the chance to create human error. The model of descartes human error problem does not succeed because nothing can be seen or perceived without the mind, and the mind is everything for us at the moment. Altough the physical body and the mind are different both are controlled by the mind. This means that even thought descartes can not see God he still believe in him, and anything that have anything evil like actions who knows it did not come from God.

Jones. Only foundation for atheist for not having faith in Gods is that they believe there is a deficiency of faithful indication, Atheists debate if God is present then why evil subsists? Why hurt or loss? Why suffering? Mackie point is if Holy Being subsists as well as is a presence that is completely good, all-powerful, all-knowing, then there shouldn’t be reality of evil, and theists would not discard that Holy Being is completely good, omnipotent, and omniscient and along with that they believe in the existence of some evil.

I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist. At the beginning of the article, Mackie states that the initial issue with God’s existence is that, “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, Paragraph 3). If god is such a pure and good being, then he should be able to combat all evil. The first statement that showcases that God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, then evil cannot possibly exist.

What is the problem of evil? What are the problems that J.L. Mackie finds with the freewill solution to the problem of evil? Are there possible solutions to the problems that Mackie raises? The customary contentions for the presence of God have been reasonably completely scrutinized by rationalists.

Moral evil is caused by sentient beings, including God, and is any evil event which a rational being can be held responsible for, such as a decision to purposefully hurt someone. God is generally considered to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent however many believe that the existence of suffering on Earth is incompatible with the existence of this God. This is known as the inconsistent triad. The general view is that if God is omniscient, he would want to stop evil, if God is omnipotent he would have the power to stop evil and if he is omnibenevolent he would want to stop evil. However he does not.

Title: Defend the Argument from Evil Name: Jun Hao Li Word Count: 1394 Prompt you are responding to: Prompt (3) Defend the Argument from Evil Intro: Since ancient time, people have used the abundance of evil and suffering within our world to challenge the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good God. The argument being that is such a God exists, he would be able and willing to exterminate evil. Seeing that evil still exists, supporters of the Argument from Evil have concluded that an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good God does not exist. Theists have defended the existence of God by arguing that the existence of evil is a result of human’s possession of free will and to preserve the greater good of free will,