Mccloskey Imperfection Vs Evil

The book To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee is often associated with a various number of themes such as racism, social inequality, the importance of family values, and much more. But one of the more hidden messages of the book centers around the idea that there is a coexistence of good and evil. This theme is really brought to life the more the reader is able to understand the book. Through sub themes such as coming of age, perspective, and intense characterization of many important characters the idea of good and evil is really brought to light.

In the course of this essay I will argue that evil is not compatible with the existence of god. This means that evil and God cannot coexist because if god were present, the existence of evil would contradict all that god is believed to be. Abrahamic religions insist that God both created the world and that he preserves and maintains it. Christianity claims that God is all knowing and is boundless in his abilities. Religions claim that God is benevolent, and only wants the best for humanity and the universe, as his creations. If all of the above statements be true, then it is hard to understand why god would allow evil to thrive right from the beginning of time.

The Negative-yet-Positive Ubiquity of Natural Evil in the Universe and God’s Kenotic Presence in Creation

To reply to McCloskey’s claim that there could not be a God due to the amount of evil there is I would first acknowledge this claim. At first I too agreed with this claim that how could someone so great and loving let so much evil and pain into the lives of people who do not deserve it. Simply because I did not understand how God could be so great and let evil into this world. Since then certain truths about theology have been explained to me so I can understand the good of God verses the evil found in this world.

“You talk as if a god had made the Machine," cried the other. "I believe that you pray to it when you are unhappy. Men made it do not forget that. Great men, but men. The Machine is much, but not everything.”

As regards the cosmological argument itself, McCloskey states that "all we entitled to infer is the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe, and this does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause." (p.63) This is indeed true, there is no reason to necessarily infer a God person, however; the inference is of the nature that suggests (hence the term infer) a cause of such magnitude that it is practically God-like. Moreover, his words do not disprove the rational of a God. Entitlement not to call this cause "God" is neither entitlement to deny calling this cause or considering this cause to be "God."

The argument discussed is one that has an unending list of contingent beings, all of which need a cause for existence. According to the article, McCloskey assumes that the argument calls for an uncaused cause to start an infinite number of contingent beings. McCloskey believes that each contingent being simply exists with an infinite number of causes that eventually lead back to a case of chance. In “Philosophy of Religion” by Stephen Evans, Evans refers to this way of thinking as a “brute fact.” According to Evans, by claiming this stance would turn the partial argument into a whole argument and concurrently, “this will require the defender of the argument to claim that the contingency of the whole of the universe can validly be inferred from the contingency of all its parts.” Where McCloskey’s ignorance further takes a violent curve against acquiring knowledge about the beginning of the universe connects to his argument is when he said “This means that the first cause must be explained as being a necessarily existing being, one who cannot exist.” What he is alluding to, and is also the focal point of his disapproval of theism, is that humans do not have the right to claim that a being created the universe. If an atheist can claim that there is no such existence of God, then why is it that a theist cannot claim the existence of a God?

powerful means that he can make whatever he wants. So, if God can make whatever

In J. L. Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence,” the author presents an argument detailing why belief in a both omnipotent and wholly good God is contradictory to a God who allows evil to exist. He utilizes this philosophy to show that God doesn’t exist due to the problem of evil. As Mackie’s delineates in his first paragraph, “I think, however, that a more telling criticism can be made by way of the traditional problem of evil. Here it can be shown, not only that religious beliefs lack rational support, but that they are positively irrational, that the several parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another.” (p. 100) Mackie discusses

In John Hick’s piece “There is a Reason Why God Allows Evil”, he explains his view on the roots of evil. Hick brings up the problem of an all-loving God that allows evil to occur in the world. The conclusion that arises God must not be all loving then. However, Hick explains that humans free will is the problem that leads to evil. A few strengths that Hick has in his argument is the laws of nature, he mentions that they “…would have to be extremely flexible; sometimes gravity would operate, sometimes not; sometimes an object would be hard and solid, sometimes soft. There could be no sciences, for there would be no enduring world structure to investigate” (129). Nothing could hurt anyone or anything, and the world would be some perfect fairytale; “…life would become like a dream in which, delightfully but aimlessly, we would float and drift at ease” (130). Hick goes on to explain that evil allows people to learn what is good, grace and faith. If evil doesn’t exist, then how could one tell the difference from right or wrong? There would be no moral lessons to be taught or learned from since there is no wrong, and wrong an only be done when there is evil. Hick also mentions that bravery, courage and strength would have no point and meaning. Everything that builds character would not exist. The weakness in Hicks argument is that he is blaming free will for the ultimate cause of evil. There are obviously nature disasters that could be considered evil as well. Hick believes that

The work’s of Hick and Johnson both refer to the problem of evil. The problem of evil brings up questions of how God can exist and allow evil things to happen to humankind. God is supposedly an all-powerful and all-knowing being. Thus he should have the power to stop evil. Johnson in particular questions how God could allow something like an infant dying in a burning building to happen. He ponders how God can be all-good if he allows this and other terrible tragedies to happen.

The problem with imperfection and evil in the world claims (McCloskey) is that it goes against the divine design or purpose in the world, the limitations in the cosmological argument and that there must be a first cause. McClosley’s point is that because of the imperfect state in which the world is in that there is no such being who would allow the evil and imperfections that are plaguing the universe and that this is the evidence that a divine being does not exist or at least a reasonable explanation as to why evil is allowed to happen. One question that has come up is that,” is there a logical reason as to why God has allowed evil and suffering among his people and what is the purpose of it? McCloskey wants proof that God does or does not

Gandhi says that the only good machines are those that are useful to everyone and those who are created with love such as the sewing

McCloskey brings up the problem of evil and he makes arguments against the concept of free will. He claims “might not God

Machines additionally has an exceptionally essential influence in our lives and with such a large number of late innovations, no one can claim to have sole obligation regarding their