Blackburn's Argument Analysis

The Problem of Evil is one of the most influential and common arguments in modern philosophy against the existence of a Greater Being, God (Trakakis, 2006). Both Theist, those who believe in the existence of God, and Atheist, those who don’t believe in the existence of God, argue that evil exists in the world. The Problem of Evil explores whether the existence of evil and suffering constitutes significance evidence for atheism. When looking at the definition of the greater being, most refer to the Omni-god in which is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent, meaning God is all powerful, all knowing and all good. Atheist Philosophers therefore argue that no Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent greater being would allow evil and

“The problem of evil is often divided between the logical and evidential problems.” At the heart of each problem is the belief that the existence of God and the existence evil are incompatible. They present an “either/or” dilemma: either God

In this paper, I will argue against the problem of evil, and I will give an adequate amount of information to prove why I believe Rowe’s Problem of Evil argument is not cogent, because although it is strong, all the premises are not true. This paper will also include me explaining, discussing, and evaluating Rowe’s Problem of Evil argument. In the argument, he discusses logical reasonings about why there is a strong argument for why atheism is true.

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.

Nicholas Carr Claimed that the internet affects our information processing. Carr backed up his argument by speaking with a wide array of educated and reputable people like friends, colleagues, a blogger, GMU and a professor making his argument validity greater. Carr admits that he and his friends also; have the same problem by saying that he was appealing to emotions by using Ethos.

In this paper, I will break apart J. L. Mackie’s stern defense of the logical problem of evil, which he uses to suggest the God does not exist. I will attempt to defend the notion that both God and evil, in the form of human creation, can exist in the world by way of suggesting that freewill is the answer. Furthermore, I will strengthen the argument for freewill against Mackie’s defense, which suggests that the argument of freewill also compromises the Omni-three nature of God. In part, I will back freewill by using Mackie’s own logic against him. In its totality, I will build up a strong force against the logical problem of evil, leaving room for both the existence of human formed evil and God in this world under the

He had claimed that if God was to be all good yet does not possess the power to vanquish evil then logically God can-not be all powerful, similarly if he is indeed all powerful and possess the ability to eliminate all evil then he indeed cannot be all good. Blackburn uses the analogy of a university to explain the claim of the implausibility of God in a more relatable sense. In the university, students live in poor conditions such as leaky roofs and food that is inedible. The university management sits behind a closed office door yet never emerges and as such it would not be logical to assume that the management knows, cares and can do anything about the issues affecting the students. In a logical sense one must come to the same conclusion about such a god – such a being simply can not exist. It would be ignorant to believe so. Blackburn also addresses the claim that God has a different sense of what is good and what is evil by claiming that if the suffering of many around the world for any purpose, such as to test his, hers or its followers then this god is not suitable for moral guidance. However it is important to note that Blackburn does not refute the idea of a god existing, and goes as far as stating that a god may exist but not in a traditional Judeo-Christian form of understanding.

John Hick discusses in his essay The Problem of Evil, the objections to the belief in the existence of God is the presence of evil in the world. He begins by posing the traditional challenge to theism in the form of the dilemma: That if God was perfectly loving, he must wish to abolish evil, and being all powerful, is able to perfectly do so as he will its. He then proceeds to present some views regarding this issue, giving insights from three point of views, that of contemporary Christian Science, the Boston Personalist school, and the theologian Augustine. The first opinion takes evil as an illusion, as a construct of the human mind. The second confers upon God finity, God as a struggling ruler,

Having completed the unit of philosophy of religion, you are now ready to respond to an article written by an actual atheist.  This article, titled “On Being an Atheist,” was written by H. J. McCloskey in 1968 for the journal Question.  McCloskey is an Australian philosopher who wrote a number of atheistic works in the 1960s and 70s including the book God and Evil (Nijhoff, 1974). In this article, McCloskey is both critical of the classical arguments for God’s existence and offers the problem of evil as a reason why one should not believe in God.

An argument against the existence of God is based on the presence of evil in the world. This deductively valid argument is divided into two categories; human action and natural evil (Sober, 2005, p. 120). Human action discusses how experiences makes us better people, while natural evil are tragic events that are not under the control of humans. Each category is used as evidence to refute God as an all-powerful omniscient, omnibenevolent, or omnipotent being. In order to understand the strengths of this argument, it is important for an overall assessment of how the presence of evil questions if a Supreme Being actually exists, by arguing why a being of all-good would allow evil, importance of evil in a good world, and questioning God’s intervention in evil.

To an extent, I think that free will is an answer to the questions of God’s existence and why there is still evil in the world. In order to have free will, one must be able to make a choice. A choice between good and evil, right and wrong, or moral and immoral. But another point that is brought up is interesting to me. What about the things that are not one’s choice? Things like cancer and sickness, natural disasters, and ultimately death from things that are out of one’s control. If a all powerful and loving God does exist, why do these things? Our book says “But once one recognizes that a natural order is required for meaningful human freedom, the possibility emerges that human beings might inadvertently get caught in the gears of nature’s mechanism.” Growing up in the christian church, I was taught that everything happens for a reason. Some verses that jump out to me are:

In John Perry’s “A Dialogue on Good, Evil, and the Existence of God”, he uses a three character dialogue to debate the existence of God using evil as the main tactic against God’s existence. My goal for this paper is to prove that the theodicy Miller gives as his proof for the possible existence of God is in fact possible using scenarios that I have experienced during my lifetime. In order for Miller to suffice Weirob’s challenge he must convince her that, “The Christian God that Miller believes in – all-perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent – could possibly exist given as unimportant a bit of suffering.” (Perry, p. 99)

Regarding “free will” as a solution to the problem of evil Blackburn discusses it in three sections. First, Blackburn says that if we approach free will in a compatibilist way, our decision capacity is done with a natural bestow which ultimately comes from God according to theists. Therefore, if God did not want evil, he should not have created the human with such nature. Second, he states that is not true that all suffering comes because of human decisions. Some afflictions have other causes such as accidents or diseases. Third, God does not protect the weak from the suffering caused because of the free will of the stronger.

William Rowe defines gratuitous evil as an instance of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.(Rowe 335) In a world with so much evil it raises the questions If God is all powerful, all knowing and all good, how can he allow bad things to happen to good people? Can God even exist in a world with so such gratuitous evil? These are questions that has afflicted humanity for a very long time and has been the question to engross theologians for centuries. The existence of evil has been the most influential and powerful reason to disprove the existence of God. It is believed among many theist that God is the creator and caretaker

The problem of evil has been around since the beginning. How could God allow such suffering of his “chosen people”? God is supposedly all loving (omni-benevolent) and all powerful (omnipotent) and yet He allows His creations to live in a world of danger and pain. Two philosophers this class has discussed pertaining to this problem is B.C. Johnson and John Hick. Johnson provides the theists’ defense of God and he argues them. These include free will, moral urgency, the laws of nature, and God’s “higher morality”. Hick examines two types of theodicies – the Augustinian position and the Irenaeus position. These positions also deal with free will, virtue (or moral urgency), and the laws of nature. Johnson