Commentary of Evil in Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part X

685 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: David Hume the argument from evil

In Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part X, Philo have questioned how it is possible to reconcile God's infinite benevolence, wisdom, and power with the presence of evil in the world. “His power we allow is infinite: whatever he wills is executed: but neither man nor any other animal is happy: therefore he does not will their happiness. His wisdom is infinite: he is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end: but the course of Nature tends not to human or animal felicity: therefore it is not established for that purpose.” (Hume, 87) Given the presence of evil, we must either conclude that God wishes to prevent needless suffering, but cannot, in which case God is not all-powerful, or we may admit that he does not wish to prevent evil in which case we may conclude that God is not infinitely benevolent. Or, alternatively, we can conclude that he both wishes and can prevent evil, but that he is not wise enough to know how to arrange the world so that there is no evil, in which case he is not infinitely wise. Evaluation Philo’s argument of the incompatibility of God’s existence with the existence of evil is valid, because of the following: Philo’s argument has the premises which are God is infinitely wise, powerful and benevolent is true. The existence of evil shows God must lack either infinite benevolence or powerful or wisdom. If we assume these premises are true, then the conclusion God does not exist is true. A valid argument is one on which, if we assume the premises are all true, the conclusion must be true. Therefore it is a valid argument. It is an unsound argument, because the premises of this argument are not true in fact: the existence of evil cannot show that God must lack either infinite benevole... ... middle of paper ... ...ng on randomly, evil things happen to people who don't deserve it. Is this state runs counter to the idea that God is just. Or God could not control how much evil is necessary to bring to whom. These replies are unsuccessful, because Van Inwagen's response is to say that God entails "being the playthings of chance." living in a world with no justice is a consequence of our separation with God; it's one more evil thing about our world. God's infinite perfection allows him to control how much evil is necessary to bring to whom, but he is executing his plan and waiting people to recognize how horrible it is to be apart from God. In my opinion about the replies of Van Inwangen’s objection, if God is infinitely perfect, then we are limited to comprehend God, we can allow that God's infinite perfection and the evil of his great plan can be reconciled in some unknown way.

Show More
Related

  • Critical Analysis of Evil as Evidence for Christianity by Gregory E. Ganssle

    712 Words  | 2 Pages

    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 strong logical argumentation, presented evidence and showing how evil supporting atheism is a weak defense Ganssle does not appear to show inconsistency in his work.

    Read More

  • Analysis of Evil in Peter Van Inwagen´sThe Argument from Evil

    1218 Words  | 3 Pages

    Inwagen sets the basic format for the problem of evil as thus: God has “non-negotiable” properties of omnipotence and moral perfection, there is evil in this world, if an omnipotent and morally perfect being created this world there shouldn’t be evil in it, therefore, there is no God. (Reason and Responsibility, 108) Omnipotence meaning able to bring about anything that is not a contradiction and moral perfection meaning never – not even once- doing something that is morally unacceptable. (Reason and Responsibility, 108) Inwagen’s objective in the essay, The Argument from Evil, is to present a “defense” against the problem of evil. Inwagen’s defense is not trying to prove he knows the reason why evil exists; rather, only to show that there may be “a very real possibility” that God has a morally acceptable reason for allowing evil to exist. (Reason and Responsibility, 109) Inwagen’s reasoning behind this is as follows; from the premises of the problem of evil the conclusion, God does not exist, does not necessary follow because He may have a morally acceptable reason for allowing evil to exist. Inwagen makes a case for the above reasoning by using an analogy that shows human do not always act on their wants, that they are able to bring about, because they have reasons not to and this can be extrapolated to God. (Reason and Responsibility, 109) The next question then is: what this reason, or reasons, to ...

    Read More

  • Transworld Depravity Analysis

    1462 Words  | 3 Pages

    The problem of evil, as articulated by J.L. Mackie, concerns the consistency of the following claims typically accepted by theists: God is omniscient; God is omnipotent; God is omnibenevolent; evil exists. If God is omniscient, then he should know about all evil that exists. If God is omnipotent, then it should be within his power to prevent all evil from occurring. Finally, if God is omnibenevolent, then it should be the case that he would not permit the evil that he is capable of preventing. The fact that evil does exist seems to indicate an inconsistency in the set of claims. In other words, the existence of evil seems to threaten the status of at least one of the divine attributes. This paper will explicate Alvin Plantinga's response to the problem of evil, in which he invokes the concept of transworld depravity. He argues that it is possible that all agents suffer this condition, and so, if this were the case, then God could not actualize any possible world in which free

    Read More

  • Evil and Omnipotence

    947 Words  | 2 Pages

    “The third rope was still moving; being so light, the child was still alive… For more than half an hour he stayed there, struggling between life and death, dying in slow agony under our eyes… Behind me, I heard the same man asking; ‘Where is God now?’ And I heard a voice within me answer him: ‘Where is He? Here He is-He is hanging here on this gallows.’” (Wiesel, 1982) What possible good could have come out of this child being executed? He committed no recognizable crime. How could an all powerful, all knowing, perfectly good God allow such a thing to happen? Philosophers and theologians have struggled with this question for centuries. It is known as the problem of evil, as the existence of evil and the classical theistic concept of God appear to be logical incompatibilities. Many philosophers have devised theodicies or justifications of evil; however; J. L. Mackie proposed that the only plausible explanation is not that evil is justifiable but rather that the problem lies in the traditional concept of God.

    Read More

  • God's Omnipotence

    1649 Words  | 4 Pages

    In the beginning of Mackie's work he writes a brief introduction to fully expose the problem of evil, and to set guidelines for determining whether or not the problem applies to one. Mackie states that in his work one must be prepared to believe, not only what cannot be proved, but also what can be proven wrong from other beliefs one has. From this Mackie moves on to describe that the problem applies only to individual's who believe that there is a God who is omnipotent and wholly good. Mackie sets this guideline in order to eliminate the acceptions of individual's that the problem will not apply to. Now that Mackie has set the guideline to test whether the problem is applicable, he states the problem of evil in what he calls its 'simplest form.' Mackie states the problem as; God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, and evil still exists. The problem with the phrase is that all three propositions cannot exist collectively. One can choose only two and it would cause the third to be false. Now that Mackie is nearing the end of his introduction he sets some rules concerning the terms 'good,' 'evil,' and 'omnipotent.' Mackie states that good is opposed to evil in a way that good always eliminates evil as best as it can and that...

    Read More

  • William Rowe Atheism Analysis

    631 Words  | 2 Pages

    William Rowe presents an evidential argument that supports the idea that God, an omniscient and supreme being, cannot exist because gratuitous evil, meaningless evil that does not correlate to a greater good, exists. Rowe organizes his argument into two premises which support that God does not exist. The first premise acknowledges that gratuitous evils exists in abundance in the world, creating a common experience, or natural theology. Then, Rowe argues, in his second premise, the incompatibility of gratuitous evil and God. Once the two premises have been established and proven true, Rowe concludes that God does not exist.

    Read More

  • Simon Blackburn's Argument Analysis

    1215 Words  | 3 Pages

    There are those who believe wholeheartedly in an all-powerful, benevolent, creator God, and those that believe putting one’s faith in such a thing is ludicrous. Simon Blackburn questions the existence of such a God with “the problem of evil.” Essentially, it means since there is evil, pain and strife in the world it would be illogical to believe in an infallible, benevolent God. Why would God create a world with so much evil? If this God exists, then the world would be perfect. The world is not perfect. Therefore, there can be no such God. Blackburn confronts many possible criticisms to his argument. He attacks the idea of the world being a test for who goes to heaven or hell, our misunderstanding of God’s morality as human morality and the free-will argument. I believe he successfully debunks these criticisms, but he does not address the issue of dichotomy. Everything in the world is relative, and things are defined by their opposites.

    Read More

  • Dialogues Conceringing Natural Religion

    691 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...no cause to believe that one could. If the character chooses to believe that a God exists than they are only creating an irrational and inconsistent argument. He goes on to continue another argument about a disfigured building. In any normal situation, the architect would be blamed for any complications in the engineering of the building. If God created the universe, than he should blamed for any flaws that are existing in it along with the fact the fact that God was not adequate enough to create a perfect universe. In the end, Philo makes his final point by stating that the world does not exist in a way which would give one reason to believe that there is a God. He believes that no matter how many arguments Cleanthes comes up with, there will still be no proof that a God exists in which he believes to be true based on the fact that there is no observable evidence.

    Read More

  • Epicurus Paradox

    1070 Words  | 3 Pages

    “If God is willing to prevent Evil, but not able. Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Philo, Demea And Cleanthes

    1331 Words  | 3 Pages

    The argument from design discussion occurs in parts two through five of the Dialogues, and begins with Demea professing that what needs to be questioned is God’s nature, not his existence, since all three of the members already agree that God exists. He says that humans are weak and will never be able to understand God’s nature, stating “finite, weak, and blind creatures, we ought to humble ourselves in his august presence, and, conscious of our frailties, adore in silence his infinite perfections, which eye has not seen, ear has not heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man to perceive” (Hume 607). By this, Demea means that understanding God’s nature is beyond the capacity of human understanding, and humans will never have a clear answer regarding it. Philo agrees with Demea on this idea, but also says that he does not assume that God is like humans in any way at all. To defend his argument, he says “Wisdom, thought, design, knowledge— these we justly ascribe to him, because these words are h...

    Read More

  • Deductive Problem Of Evil Essay

    1523 Words  | 4 Pages

    One of the major philosophical debates concerning God's existence involves the problem of evil.  The problem has two basic formulations, one is deductive, the other inductive.  The deductive form of the problem asks the following:  Is the existence of evil logically compatible with a necessarily benevolent and necessarily omnipotent being?  One of the philosophers who discusses the problem is Richard Gale.  I will begin this essay by outlining the deductive problem of evil according to Gale.  I will then try to refute the deductive argument and prove that the existence of evil is indeed logically compatible with a benevolent and omnipotent being.  A conclusion will then follow.

    Read More

  • Problem Of Evil Argument Essay

    807 Words  | 2 Pages

    We have to first ask ourselves if this is true. The premise itself makes you think about the consequences of free will. In general, free will appears to be a great good. Without it, one cannot genuinely love or care for something. But then again also having free will, allows for the possibilities for us to do evil things. Looking at free will alone would count against both parts of this premise. These evils that exist include moral and natural evils that one may not be able to control. Immoral action and natural phenomena have these results. Even these natural evils, are a result from humans. For example, we have global warming. It overall is taking natural effect but it had started because of humans. Another way of looking at this premise would be to argue that God could very well exist with evil and he could use it to achieve a greater good. That is very much a possibility. Who is to say that evil only brings out the bad in things? God could have a reasoning for evil. Bringing the good out of it is his way of showing infinite love. So because of his ways, he is then looked at as the good that is brought out of

    Read More

  • Summary Of Evil And Omnipotence By J. L. Mackie

    480 Words  | 1 Pages

    In J.L. Mackie’s work of “Evil and Omnipotence” he breaks down the issues of having a wholly good God who is omnipotent and how evil comes to wreck havoc on the equation. He comes to the rationalization that there isn’t a God, or that the God individuals have come to worship in religion simply does not exist. How could evil exist through the creation of someone who is nothing but good and righteous?

    Read More

  • Theodicy: The Problem Of Evil

    573 Words  | 2 Pages

    Since the commencement of time, people have been questioning and debating the problem of evil and why God allows for evil to exist. If evil is the spiritual balance of good, then without the existence of evil, good would not be able exist. This belief may be explained by the contrast theodicy that God may have reasons for evil to exist in society. An example of a contrast theodicy would be that bad things happen to good people and is the basis of the relationship of evil to God’s intent for the good of mankind. People also question why God does not eliminate the suffering of mankind from the world. Again, we can turn to a theodicy to provide an explanation to this question. The answer may found in the big-plan theodicy, which explains that suffering may be part of God’s big plan and needs to happen for good of mankind.

    Read More

  • The Nature Of Human Nature: Good And Evil

    709 Words  | 2 Pages

    Our free will that God gave us leads to sin since humans are not fully pure. Sin then leads to evil. I believe that God allows evil to exist. He can handle evil, it’s below him. If God is capable of mediating as I trust, then He must not for reasons. First, it would curtail our free will if He intervened. If he destroyed evil now, then there would be no more goodness since one can’t exist without the other. Second, we wouldn’t learn from our mistakes; we learn from suffering and hardships. Perseverance makes us stronger, not

    Read More

More about Commentary of Evil in Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part X

Open Document