Renowned philosopher, J.L Mackie claims that it is positively irrational to believe that God exists, as religious belief is irrational. The reason Mackie claims God’s existence is irrational is due to the inconsistent triad. Essentially, the inconsistent triad is a set of propositions that cannot all be true at the same time; while two out of the three variables may be successful, it is fundamentally impossible for all three to co-exist at the same time (85). Of the three; God being: omnipotent, wholly good, and that evil exists, they simply cannot all be true which entails a contradiction (85). How can an omnipotent and wholly good God exist while there is still evil in the world? Another argument that Mackie brings forward further opens up the problem of evil; which refers to the philosophical dilemma that arises when one tries to appease the existence of God with the fact that evil exists, and is prevalent in our world. This problem seems to only arise when one defines god as omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent (). In order to provide the highest insight to this problem, an analysis of one of the responses that Mackie deals with in relation to the problem of evil which is, “Evil is due to human free will…” will be displayed …show more content…
Before we address the many concerning questions regarding the statement we must first entertain the reasoning behind “free-will” as a plausible solution. At a glance, this solution completely takes away any responsibility God has for there being evil in the world. It is because of free will that God logically allows there to be evil in the world in order to solidify the third order good; in this case, freedom (89). For ‘real’ freedom to exist, the free will aspect counterpart is that second order evil is a logical necessity for this freedom. However, as we see in Mackie’s responses to this solution, that may not be the
“God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world” (Lewis, 1994, p. 91). Throughout history man has had to struggle with the problem of evil. It is one of the greatest problems of the world. Unquestionably, there is no greater challenge to man’s faith then the existence of evil and a suffering world. The problem can be stated simply: If God is an all-knowing and all-loving God, how can He allow evil? If God is so good, how can He allow such bad things to happen?Why does He allow bad things to happen to good people? These are fundamental questions that many Christians and non-Christians set out to answer.
In his essay, "The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: a Theodicy," Peter van Inwagen alleges a set of reasons that God may have for allowing evil to exist on earth. Inwagen proposes the following story – throughout which there is an implicit assumption that God is all-good (perfectly benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient) and deserving of all our love. God created humans in his own likeness and fit for His love. In order to enable humans to return this love, He had to give them the ability to freely choose. That is, Inwagen holds that the ability to love implies free will. By giving humans free will, God was taking a risk. As Inwagen argues, not even an omnipotent being can ensure that "a creature who has a free choice between x and y choose x rather than y" (197)1. (X in Inwagen’s story is ‘to turn its love to God’ and y is ‘to turn its love away from God,’ towards itself or other things.) So it happened that humans did in fact rebel and turn away from God. The first instance of this turning away is referred to as "the Fall." The ruin of the Fall was inherited by all humans to follow and is the source of evil in the world. But God did not leave humans without hope. He has a plan "whose working will one day eventuate in the Atonement (at-one-ment) of His human creatures with Himself," or at least some of His human creatures (198). This plan somehow involves humans realizing the wretchedness of a world without God and turning to God for help.
Roger White presents an interesting argument for why God must exist. In his argument, White states that everything in the world is finely tuned to live its life accordingly. In order for this to be possible, God must have finely tuned all beings so that they were well fit for life. In depth, this argument is, “If a fact stands in need of an explanation, and a hypothesis explains this fact better than anything else, then they support each other. Our universe being so perfect for life is a fact in need of explanation. The hypothesis that God has finely tuned everything to be where all living beings can exist in this universe is an explanation to this fact. No other hypothesis compares to such a standard as this one. Therefore, the fact that our
The problem of evil is a difficult objection to contend with for theists. Indeed, major crises of faith can occur after observing or experiencing the wide variety and depths of suffering in the world. It also stands that these “evils” of suffering call into question the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The “greater good defense” tries to account for some of the issues presented, but still has flaws of its own.
Throughout the world, most people believe in some type of god or gods, and the majority of them understand God as all-good, all-knowing (omniscient), and all-powerful (omnipotent). However, there is a major objection to the latter belief: the “problem of evil” (P.O.E.) argument. According to this theory, God’s existence is unlikely, if not illogical, because a good, omniscient, and omnipotent being would not allow unnecessary suffering, of which there are enormous amounts.
The problem of evil is a deductive a priori argument who’s goal is to prove the non-existence of God. In addition to Mackie’s three main premises he also introduces some “quasi-logical” rules that give further evidence to his argument. First he presumes that a good thing will eliminate evil to the extent that it can and second, that omnipotence has no limits. From these two “additional premises,” it can be concluded that a completely good and omnipotent being will eliminate all possible evil. After establishing these added premises Mackie continues with his piece to list and negate several theistic responses to the argument.
Mackie in his paper Evil and Omnipotence, constructs an argument against the idea of the possibility of a God existing that has the characteristics laid out by the main religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. These characteristics include that God is omnipotent, or He is capable of stopping evil, and omni benevolent, or He wants to eliminate evil and He is entirely good. Mackie systematically goes through his logical thought process as well as his response to any type of criticism or alternative solution that might arise. The main point of his argument is to establish that God, as constructed by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, could not possibly exist. It is one of the most highly regarded arguments towards atheism.
This essay features the discussion of the problem of evil in relation to the existence of god. Specifically outlining two sections where the problem of evil is discussed from atheist and theistic viewpoint.
When it comes to choosing an argument for the existence of god I believe that Paley’s argument of creation and design is the best for proving that god does exist. In his argument Paley is suggesting that if we were to look at the world around us, we could easily come to the conclusion that it was not created by pure chance but, by a creator (a designer). Paley uses a watch and a rock in order to explain his argument. He mentions how if there was a watch on the floor and we have never seen it before, we would easily come to the conclusion that the watch could not have been made by pure chance but, some kind of intelligent design was put into it. He argues that when we look at the rock we do not so easily see the design, but it does not mean
In line with the above arguments regarding the perfectness of the world as it exists, as advanced by Malebranche and Leibniz, it is the opinion of this discussion that the view advanced by Leibniz is more plausible. This is because, considering the fact that God is all-powerful, He has created the conscious as the tool that directs humans to know the right and wrong, but the will of God from the beginning has been that man shall do what is right (Leibniz, 2). Therefore, the fact that bad things happen is contributed by the choice of man to ignore the conscious that defines good or bad, and instead to do against the will of the conscious. Therefore, God is no t responsible for the human actions that are directed by the humans own intellect and will (Brown, 91). For this reason, Leibniz is plausible.
There is evil. 3. So, God does not exist”. Since there is evil, then that means God does not exist. So there is no loving and powerful God. However, if there is a God then he is not all loving and powerful. Daniel Howard-Snyder states in his article “God, Evil, And Suffering,”: “We would have to say God lacks power and knowledge to such an extent that He can 't prevent evil. And there lies the trouble. For how could God have enough power and knowledge to create and sustain the physical universe if He can 't even prevent evil? How could He be the providential governor of the world if He is unable to do what even we frequently do, namely prevent evil?” (5). This statement argues that God is not all powerful because he is unable to prevent evil in the world. Daniel Howard-Snyder then argues that: “Would a perfectly good being always prevent evil as far as he can? Suppose he had a reason to permit evil, a reason that was compatible with his never doing wrong and his being perfect in love, what I 'll call a justifying reason. For example, suppose that if he prevented evil completely, then we would miss out on a greater good, a good whose goodness was so great that it far surpassed the badness of evil. In that case, he might not prevent evil as far as he can, for he would have a justifying reason to permit it” (5). Even if God had a reason to allow evil, he who is all loving and powerful would want the least amount of people to suffer and feel pain. Since God knows
The Problem of Evil is the question that asks if God is perfectly benevolent, all-powerful, and all-knowing, then how can he allow evil to exist? Many philosophers have tried to answer this age-old question, often focusing on the intellect and the will. This essay will explore and compare the ways in which Descartes, Leibniz, and Berkeley each attempt to solve this dilemma.
Since the beginning of time, society has been plagued by questions stemming past the grasp of human understanding. In attempt to explain such bewilderment, mankind formed a principle belief regarding their presence as the workings of a more capable being, God. As time has progressed, distinguished and scholarly members of society have come forward with ideas regarding some distinct understanding into the complex subject that is god. To this day, students are taught theories that have managed to stand the test of time and interpretation, theories that are highly respected by the top scholars of this century. Throughout this paper, I will thoroughly outline, discuss, and analyze Paley’s argument on the existence of God. Paley’s use of earthly inferences to explain the existence of a higher being has been challenged by many, but his emphasis on purpose and goal-orientation is both well-conceived and logical.
My claim that we have evil in this world because of our libertarian freedom does not fully answer the notion of “the problem of evil”. Saying we have evil in this world is just like saying we have bad decisions in this world. Bad decisions just like evil do not have a form. Every decision that God makes is a good decision therefore God cannot do evil. Human beings initiated evil. In fact, the first human beings (Adam and Eve) gave ongoing birth to evil because everyone ultimately came from them. So everyone after Adam and Eve is inherently evil. This idea is evident in our lives because every human being has committed evil. The ultimate problem is not how an all-powerful God can exist while evil exist, the ultimate dilemma is how a holy God can accept human beings that are not holy. Stephen T. Davis in “Free Will and Evil” writes, “All the moral evil that exists in the world is due to the choices of free moral agents whom God created” (Davis). Davis argues that free will is the answer to the problem of evil. This is consistent with my view that evil exists because of our libertarian freedom. Unlike Hick, Davis is consistent with my answer for evil and he is also consistent with how evil is solved in regards to heaven and hell. Davis states, “I do believe hell exists, but I do not hold that it is a place where protesting people are led against their will to be tortured vengefully. I believe that the people who will end up separated from God freely choose hell and would be unhappy in God’s presence. Having lived their lives apart from God, they will choose eternally—to go on doing so. So it is not a bad thing that they do not spend eternity in the presence of God. People who will prove to be incorrigibly evil will never come to th...
This essay provides a conclusive look at the problems and contradictions underlying a belief in God and the observable traits of the world, specifically the Problem of Evil. The analysis will address the nature of God and the existence of evil in the world, as well as objections such as the "sorting" into heaven and hell objection, God's "mysterious ways" objection, the inscrutability of God objection, values presupposing pain objection, inherent contradictions in "God's freewill," and non-human objections. omnipotent. 2) Evil exists. 3)