The Problem of Evil simply attempts to disprove the existence of God. The argument uses the rationale that since innocent people suffer, God cannot exist, as an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent being would have the means to end the suffering in question. This conclusion is widely disputed throughout the world, and if widely approved and accepted, could change much of society as we know it. Below is a basic version of the argument.
(1) If God exists, then God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and good.
(2) If God is all-powerful, then She can prevent innocent people from suffering.
(3) If God is all-knowing, then She would know when innocent people are suffering.
(4) If God is good, then She would be willing to prevent innocent
…show more content…
Premise (1) posits that if God were to exist, they would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and good. Almost all religious conceptions of God depict Him/Her as the “Great Creator”. One would necessarily be all-powerful to have the ability to create the universe and everything it contains. If God did create the universe, they would also be all-knowing, as it’s their work. Those parts of the premise are very concrete and easy to accept, however, the condition that God is “good” is a bit harder to justify. For the sake of the argument, we can hold that God is good to be true, as most if not all religions hold God to be so.
Premise (2) suggests that God would be able to prevent innocent people from suffering if they were all-powerful. This premise is easily taken at face value. A being with the power to create a universe would definitely have the capacity to save a single innocent person (whom they created) from suffering. This part of the argument is difficult to dispute because of it’s clarity and strength.
Premise (3) puts forward that God would be able to know when innocent people are suffering if they are all-knowing. We have already accepted that God created the universe, which leads Him/Her to be all-knowing, as stated before. This premise is rather strong, along with premise (2). Both are strong conditionals which most would agree
…show more content…
To perform this method, set the conclusion as false and attempt to force all the premises to be true. To start off, I set the conclusion to false, which necessarily makes A true. This first step is crucial to the completion of the method. I then proceeded down the premises, starting with premise (1). With A already true, to satisfy the conditional I set B, C, and D to true. This is necessary, as if any of B, C, or D were false, the premise would be deemed false by the conditional. I then moved to premise (2). Since B was set to true, E must be set to true as well to satisfy the conditional. A conditional with true premises must have a true conclusion to be deemed true. Premise (3) was the same story as premise (2), I set F to true to satisfy the conditional and keep the premise true. Premise (4) was more of the same. I set G to true for the conditional to be deemed true. Premise (5) is simply a sentence. I set H to true to follow the shortcut
(B) Make a list of the evidence that suggests that Oswald was being setup as a patsy.
...erfect goodness and is morally good all the time. Paley's supreme being is never attributed with being a good or bad, loving or hateful, individual. A second important characteristic of God is that he is omniscient; he knows everything about anything there is to know; although Paley's supreme being is intelligent enough to engender the first creation, it does not imply that he knows about all the subsequent creations which rose from that first creation. Thirdly, God is considered to be all-powerful or omnipotent while the supreme being possesses the power to create the first creation. Lastly, God is an eternal being whose existence defies space and time. At the start of Paley's a posteriori argument, it was concluded that while anything that shows evidence of creation has a creator, such creator exists or has existed at one point in time but is by no means eternal.
8. Repeat from step 4 twice more so you end up with three results for
The first premise is: “All ravens are black.” This premise is a hypothesis that takes a general form -- “all Fs are G”. The hypothesis “All ravens are black” is logically equivalent to the hypothesis “All non-black things are non-ravens.” Logical equivalence can be defined as: “P being logically equivalent to Q,” which means that P and Q are true or false in all the same situations and that each one is a valid argument for the other. In any instance, anything that confirms one confirms the other. Confirmation Theory of Instance says if while testing a hypothesis in the form “All Fs are G”, a particular F (for some instance) is discovered to also be G, then this evidence is enough (at least to some degree) to favor the hypothesis.
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.
In essence, the second argument said that there must be cause--or beginning--to everything, which ultimately, gives rise to effect, result, or the end. Consequently, second effect must be created and caused by the "first element of series" (Bailey and Martin, 2011, 34); therefore, the effect and existence of nth (equals to the last or end) element in series are ultimately caused and created by the 'first element,' which we call God. It is probable that first element may give direct rise to nth element. Other than God, nothing is considered infinite. So, God does not have a cause; and hence, it would have no effect.
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 ...
“…And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” (Matthew 6:9-13) As it says in the Bible, we wish to be led astray from evil. However, evil is a very curious subject. For most intensive purposes, evil can be described as cruel, heinous, and unnecessary punishment. Evil is a relatively accepted concept in the world today, although it is not completely understood. Evil is supposedly all around us, and at all times. It is more often than not associated with a figure we deem Satan. Satan is said to be a fallen angel, at one point God’s favorite. Supposedly Satan tries to spite God by influencing our choices, and therefore our lives. However, this presents a problem: The Problem of Evil. This argues against the existence of God. Can God and evil coexist?
Mackie’s argument is plausible because technically God should be omnipotent and morally perfect; but with the existence of evil, there are implications that God does not have the power to do everything and/or that he is not perfect which both go against what God stands for. This is why Mackie believes that if one takes out one of the beliefs, either that God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, or that evil exists, then they will not have a problem with evil, any of which are not ideal for theists. I definitely agree with Mackie that there is a paradox of omnipotence while trying to solve for the problem of evil because while it is suggested that God omnipotent, it is also questionable as to how and why it is possible that he is bound to his own rules. However, I prefer Inwagen’s argument more because he does not completely deny the existence of God because there is evil, rather he argues that it is still possible that God exists, just highly unlikely. I also agree with Inwagen’s point that human free will only defends some levels of evil. There has been evil in the world that goes beyond human free will such as hurricanes and earthquakes. This is a response that can settle the argument for both theists and atheists, neither can deny
This seems to have the same effect as P1. Neither version guarantees actual existence, and we do not need to argue about whether God is constrained by logical possibility (as Arnauld s...
For the purposes of this debate, I take the sign of a poor argument to be that the negation of the premises are more plausible than their affirmations. With that in mind, kohai must demonstrate that the following premises are probably false:
In this paper, I will use the writings of John Hick and Richard Swinburne to dispute the problem of evil argument. After I first elaborate on the P.O.E., I will give support for God’s existence with regards to the problem of evil. Then, I will address further counterarguments
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. Evil is opposed to God’s will, eventually cumulating in the crucifixion of God’s son, Jesus. One must then wonder how an all-loving and all-powerful God would allow such pain to occur to both his creation and Jesus. A perfect God’s world should be similarly perfect. The world is not perfect so it seems that God must not be all-loving or He must not be all-powerful. Rejecting the existence of evil, immediately rejects too much of the Judeo-Christian tradition to be considered, though some philosophers have considered it.
The following is a summary of the aspects of the problem of induction as presented in the Enquiry which concern my discussion.
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."