In monotheistic faith God is defined with a triad of attributes as being all good, all powerful and all knowing. This triad is what is empirically derived from God being the prime mover. The fact of evil, or theodicy, possess that there exists evil in this world and that this triad cannot exist through that evil conflicts with all three existing at once. The presence of evil means that God lacks one of these attributes because if he had them all, he would not allow evil to exist. If God and evil are to coexist then God must be: all knowing, all powerful, but good enough to want to stop it, lacking the knowledge to know how to stop it, or lacking the power to be able to stop it.
Critical Analysis: Evil as evidence for Christianity Evil as Evidence for Christianity is Gregory E. Ganssle’s attempt to logically explain and disprove the claim that evil points toward there being no God. Ganssle claims exactly the opposite, that evil by definition points toward the existence of God with much more substantial evidence than the latter. Ganssle states that there are “three ways in which our thoughts about evil represent facts that point to God ”. Humans have moral objections of good and evil, evil distorts good reality away from its objective purpose or end, and the objective nature of evil rather than the concept of evil points to God. An enjoyable yet short and to the point argument of Gods existence the author captures the attention of the reader and does a great job of defending his claim that evil points to the existence of God.
Through interpretations of St. Augustine, J.L. Mackie, and David Hume's arguments in reference to the God and evil problem, the problems inherent in the argument will support the assertion that the Christian God cannot exist; the definition must be altered. St. Augustine argues that the world is fundamentally good and believes in the concept of the Great Chain of Being. God is the ultimate and supreme good and each being, in a chain-like fashion, is a lesser degree of the perfect idea of good. Evil only comes into play when a member of God's world renounces his/her role in the proper scheme of things.
Anselm wanted to understand the object of the belief. He is also not trying to defend his belief against the atheist and neither is he trying to convince the atheist that God exists. The ontological argument differs from other arguments in favour of God as it is an ‘a priori’ deductive argument, a priori meaning that can come to a conclusion by the use of reason and not proof. A deductive argument means that if the premises that are put into the argument are true, then the conclusion must be true. Thus, Anselm tends to base his argument on the definitions and terminology used.
Is there any satisfactory way of reconciling the existence of an omnipotent and all-loving God with the existence of natural evil (i.e. evil not due to the misuse of human free will)? One of the central claims of the Judaeo-Christian tradition is the existence of an omnipotent and all-loving God. Against this is the observation that people and animals suffer evil. By common sense, we would infer from this observation that God, as conceived in this tradition, does not exist - for, if He did, He would prevent the evil.
The Argument of Evil for the Existence of God One of the major arguments proposed against the existence of God in contemporary western philosophy is the problem of evil. It is based upon the inability to reconcile the magnitude of evil in the world with the all-loving nature of God. John Hick describes the problem from the perspective of its proponent, "If God is perfectly loving, God must wish to abolish all evil; and if God is all-powerful, God must be able to abolish all evil. But evil exists; therefore God cannot be both omnipotent and perfectly loving." This thus causes difficulty for the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God who possess both qualities of being all-loving and omnipotent.
In the excerpt from Philosophy of Religion, John Hicks outlines the problem of evil as such: (a) If God were truly omnibenevolent, he would then wish to eliminate all evil; (b) If God is were truly omnipotent, he would then be capable of eliminating evil; (c) Evil exists in the world. Therefore: (d) God is not omnibenevolent or He is not omnipotent. Either element of the conclusion is damaging to the traditional understanding of a Judeo-Christian God. It seems simple enough. A benevolent Creator appears incompatible with what we understand to be the existence of evil.
Philo first begins his argument by stating that if God is truly dominant than he can control everything. Afterwards he continues on to state that if God was willing to avert evil but not able to than he was inept. If he is able to avert it but not willing to, he is malicious. With that being said, Philo concluded that if God truly believed in the well being of man-kind, than there would be no evil in this world. Demea responds by stating that we are only a speck in the whole universe limited to only what we can see.
Moreover, if free will was intended for living rightly and unjustly, then punishment of those who sin and reward for those who live rightly would not be justified. Therefore, Saint Augustine concludes that free will must have been given to humans by God for the purpose of living rightly. This leads to the crux argument discussed between Saint Augustine and Evodius that free will is a good gift from God. The argument may be summarized as follows: 1) All good things come from God,... ... middle of paper ... ...ill acts as an intermediary between good and bad choices, it can neither be labeled as a good gift or a bad gift from God; just and unjust events are created by the same thing. Therefore, free will should be labeled as a good and bad gift, or neither good and bad.
Having established the parameters for this essay, I will first assess the plausibility of Anselm’s version of the ontological argument. However, I will argue that this version of the ontological argument is ultimately foiled by both Gaunilo and Kant. This essay will then argue that the modal ontological argument is the most convincing before concluding that while it alone is not convincing, the fact that it merely requires the possibility of God’s existence rather than the actuality of it, means that it makes the existence of God far easier to accept. Anselm’s ontological argument can be viewed as a proof by contradiction - taking God to refer to Anselm’s “being than which nothing greater can be conceived” : (1) God exists in the understanding but not in reality. – premise (2) Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone.