God Does Not Exist Research Paper

In the world we live today we are making new and profound scientific discoveries everyday but there is a realm that is untouchable for the scientific field which is the realm of religion. In Dr. Amir Aczel’s book Why Science Does Not Disprove God, he argues against scientists such as Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins who attempt to refute the existence of god using different sciences. Dr. Aczel clearly notes that the purpose of this book is not to prove the existence of god but rather to state that science has not disproved god and will not disprove god.

One of the oldest dilemmas in philosophy is also one of the greatest threats to Christian theology. The problem of evil simultaneously perplexes the world’s greatest minds and yet remains palpably close to the hearts of the most common people. If God is good, then why is there evil? The following essay describes the problem of evil in relation to God, examines Christian responses to the problem, and concludes the existence of God and the existence of evil are fully compatible.

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.

J. L. Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence” criticizes the argument that God exists by showing that religious beliefs are positively irrational and that parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another. The problem of evil is one of the oldest problems in philosophy. The problem of evil is a logical problem for only the people who believe that there is a God who is both (1) omnipotent and (2) wholly good; yet (3) evil exists in the world. If God is wholly good and omnipotent, then how can there be a presence of evil in the world. Given the presence of evil, we must either conclude that God does not have the power to prevent the suffering that evil causes in which case God is not omnipotent or that God does not wish

In this paper, I would like to explore several responses to this argument, the nature of evil, and to explain why some evils might be a necessity.

The existence of God has been a major topic in the history of philosophy. For long, philosophers debated and each tried to seek out for an answer to rationally prove that God is an existing being and not merely a fragment of human imagination as an attempt to explain the world and its origin. One of the approaches that philosophers took to prove God’s existence is through the problem of evil. Philosopher, J.L. Mackie, used a deductive analysis on the problem to challenge his predecessors in what they claim to be rational proof. Mackie believed that the problem of evil exist within men solely due to the fact that many theists are not willing to accept God as a being that is any less than what they presuppose God is and his defining qualities.

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.

For atheists, apologetics, and non-believers, a big topic of contention is the existence of evil in a world with God. This is known as the problem with evil. How does a God that is all knowing, all powerful, and perfectly good allow such atrocities to occur under his watch? It is this question that so many people have discussed. The argument centers on God being omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good (Mackie, 1955 p. 200). Omnipotent is to be all powerful. Omniscient is to be all knowing and to be perfectly good means that God would prevent a morally bad event from ever happening (Swinburne, 1998 p. 13). In the problem of evil, God’s powers are taken at face value, and applied to God’s inaction to evil on earth. People who argue against the topic of evil typically make generalizations on the attributes that God

The problem of evil as suffering is a problem of what to do with the obstacle for the believer but also an obstacle to unbeliever to converge because they do not think it harmonising. In contradiction to compatibility, an atheist often suggested that the present of evil entails the absence of God. Atheist argued, if God exists, then as an omnipotent, he is able to prevent the evil occurrence. For omniscient, it implies under any circumstances evil will occur if he does not act. Then, being perfectly good, he will prevent its occurrence and so evil will not exist. Based on this above proclamation, the existence of God does not compatible with the evil of whatever kind. However, theists response to this logical problem of evil by an atheist is that necessarily perfectly good being, foreseeing the occurrence of evil and able to prevent it, will prevent evil. The essay will first, define what evil is according to Swinburne as one of the philosopher of religion, Second, Swinburne four categories of evil will be discussed (Physical evil, mental evil, state evil, moral evil). Third, Phillip logical and existential problem evil will be discussed through. How will all these above assertions be a problem to those that and does not believe in God.

Throughout history, the Problem of Evil has always been a topic of debate between many philosophers. Some philosophers find it impossible for the existence of an all-knowing God and the existence of evil at the same time. Other theists have been able to defend how the two are compatible. J.L. Mackie, a former Philosophy professor at Oxford, attempted to prove the theists’ arguments of the co-existence of God and evil to be invalid. Mackie presents many counterarguments for the Problem of Evil.

Philosopher Peter Van Inwagen argues in The Argument from Evil for the existence of God. Inwagen believes that the concept of free-will is the reason why evil exists in the world. He first discusses what the characteristics of a God are; a God is omnipotent and morally perfect. These reasons present the Problem of Evil which is; why would an omnipotent and morally perfect God allow evil to persist? To this question, we get the two explanations of a theodicy, which provides justification for God, and a defense, which takes into evidence evil and suggests that humans may not have the whole picture to understand why God allows evil. The free-will defense is the most popular defense which states that God knows that evil is inevitable when it comes

Evil, a “thing” we all fear that comes in many shapes and sizes, the most malevolent “being” in the universe. Why is it here, why does it exist? We can all give examples of evil actions, people, things, and places that we as a society believe are truly evil, but it is important to understand where did we conceived these ideas. Theodicy is defined as the many different views on the existence of evil, but we must go more in depth in order to correctly define what is good and bad. Evil is known to be the source of bad and God, the creator of heaven and earth, the divine being, is the counter opposite of evil.

Stephen Law conducted a thought experiment with a purpose of establishing the existence of an evil God, whereby he challenged those who believed in the presence of a kind and good God, doing nothing evil, and argued that the existent God is wicked indeed. The hypothesis developed into the challenge based on the argument that, if an omnibenevolent God is said to exist, yet there is so much evil in the world, then there is as well a possibility that an evil God exists, yet there is so much good. Law aimed to doubt not the fact of the existence of God, but the generally accepted assumption that the existing God is benevolent. Another researcher, Rowe, refutes this approach, arguing that the existence of a Supreme Being, who created people and hence cares for them, cannot be associated with evil. In fact, the presence of evil is a clear sign of the absence of a God. This paper seeks to take a position opposing to Law’s theory and prove that, despite the presence of evil, an omnibenevolent God still exists.

There are two types of evil that seem unrelated but correspond directly with one another. Moral evil is the “Evil produced by the hands of moral agents” (Elwell 414) meaning that moral evil is the result of bad choices made through free-will; i.e. war. When moral agents make poor decisions the effect is not only shown in human interaction but also in nature. Natural evil is the consequence of moral evil in nature; i.e. earthquakes. The Garden of Eden is a prime example. Adam and Eve were moral agents who had free-will. In their free-will they decided to act against God and as a result nature fell; there were thorns, diseases,

The question is that is it possible to prove the existence of God in a strictly scientific? Answer is incredibly straightforward that there is no individual in the world who could come back with a solid proof whether God exists or not. One of the primary difficulties is the lack of a general characterization of the existence or nonexistence of which is required to be proved. First of all, for the benefit of further narrative, I would like to give the most general definition of "God" as far as possible including all possible variations. Consider our world as a great computer stylish game or a social network. For such a system may well be the one who designed it, created, wrote and performs systemic organization (Everitt N.p.). If you doubt the presence of Facebook creator and administrator of this network, it will look at least strange.