Walter Sinnott-Armstrong's Argument Analysis

While I agree with certain aspects of both theories, I have to dispute both outlooks on the ultimate power of God. John Hick believes that there is no way you can deny the existence of evil, but he believes all evil exists because the all powerful God allows it to. How could a God who is all good allow evil to be present, you ask? Hick’s answer to your question would be; In order to draw us closer to him(GOD). If there were no sorrows, pains, or woes, mankind would not see the need for God’s forgiveness and love.

Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil. Mackie’s argument highlights the inconsistency that arises between the premises of God’s existence. Mackie proposes the problem of evil to be that “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; [God exists]; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, 1955, p.200). Mackie states these four propositions cannot coexist, therefore, if evil exists, God cannot and conversely, if God is real evil must be

This tries to prove God’s existence by saying that all natural things were created for a purpose by an intelligent designer; this is much like Paley’s Teleological Argument. This argument does not work because it does not prove that the intelligent designer of natural things must be God. Overall, Aquinas’s argument fails to fulfil its only purpose: prove that God exists. If an argument cannot prove that God is all knowing, all good, and all powerful, then it does not prove the existence of a god at all. Another main reason why this argument and many other arguments for God’s existence does not work is because of the problem of evil.

Even though I do not believe in the Divine Command Theory, I still believe in God, and that he is the creator of all things. I think that God’s goodness is rooted in nature, and it is in his nature to do good. However, I do not think this alone can prove that the Divine Command Theory is true. The Divine Command Theory implies that we know what God approves or disapproves of, but really no one knows for sure. So, we must rely on our own understanding

Mavrodes explains that if god is omnipotent, then the stone question is a contradiction in and of itself. His reasoning makes logical sense because if one agrees that god is an all powerful entity, then there is no realm in which god can create something that he cannot lift. As Mavrodes articulates, the crux of the question is its built in attempt to imply that god is not omnipotent. And, if one believes that God is not omnipotent, then it follows that of course god would not be able to lift the stone, or would not be able to create a stone heavy enough to lift thus rendering him non-omnipotent. And, if one believes that god is omnipotent, then this question is irrelevant because this question is a contradiction.

Antony subjectively defines morality and uses nature as her source. In contrast, I believe God created all things and defines good and evil through His creation and Word. And finally, as followers of God, our motivation for accomplishing good comes from our love for all God has done for us. Imagine a world without order, chaotic without a specific guide to right or wrong–a world without God. Antony considers herself a “moralistic atheist”, possessing similar beliefs to a humanitarian.

Descartes most famous phrase “I think, therefore I am” shows that we cannot be deceived of our own existence as we cannot think if we exist if we do not in fact exist. Descartes’ second part of the hypothesis for the Evil Demon argument refutes the idea of there being such a being with the assumption of a God. With the assumption of a God who is merciful and kind the chance of an evil being deceiving and tricking us would be highly unlikely to happen. Therefore, we can be very sure that we are not being deceived by an evil demon, only for those who believe in God. Other people who do not would rather not believe in the existence of God than believe the uncertainty of everything else (Descartes first mediation, page 202).

Leibniz keeps that an all things are good, powerful God had made the world and that, consequently, the world necessity be faultless. When human existences observe something as incorrect or evil, it is simply because they do not know the final good that the so known as evil is destined to help. Alike Candide, Pangloss is not a realistic character; to some extent, he is a one-sided, overstated image of a certain substantial of philosopher whose character is close from his philosophy. Pangloss Supporter of optimism. He upholds that the whole thing happens for the best and for adequate

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins emphasizes on four theses that roughly entail his argument. Science is evidence based whilst faith is blind, If God created everything, who created Him, morality does not depend on a creator, and the Christian religion is perilous to society. His writing forces the reader to ponder the validity of religion. Dawkins adamantly states that religion can either be fully true or false. If proven false, it is the duty the intellectually conscience to refute.

Epicurus questions how and why evil exists if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. He understands that God cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving if evil exists since s/he would then be limited in power and love. This means that God either does not have the power to stop evil or God is no so loving and will allow evil in the world. I will analyze Epicurus’ question through John Hick’s theodicy of soul making. Argument Because of imperfections in the world and humanity, evil exists.