Problem Of Evil Argument Analysis

Before we can dive into the problem of evil, we must define a term. Whenever the word “God” is used in this paper, it is referring to the classical theistic conception of God. In this view of God, God is that, “than which nothing greater can be conceived” in your mind. Any attributes or qualities that make a being great, God has to the maximum. This means that, among many other qualities, God is benevolent(all good), omnipotent(all powerful), and omniscient(all knowing). Furthermore, God is the creator of the universe and is personally connected to the human race.

“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.

The argument for the existence of God has been a debate for many centuries. God, in terms of philosophy, must be a supernatural being that: is all-knowing, is all-powerful, and is all-good. Theists believe God exists based on these terms; atheists on the other hand don’t believe in God. Atheists believe that if there is evil present in the universe, then there is no possible way God can exist if he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Evil is defined in three different categories: human evil (evil we humans cause), natural evil (not in our control, of the Earth), and sufferings of the heart (not necessarily human/natural evil). The argument for the problem of evil is that God doesn’t exist because evil exists. In

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

Evil is something that exists in many forms. From big evils like Hitler’s Holocaust and slavery, to small evils like getting a papercut and getting stuck in the rain (perhaps to some this might be a big evil), evil is basically anything that is not good. For theologians, evil poses several problems, most notably when it comes to the existence of God.

Another attempt to prove the problem of evil is the evidential version of the argument. This argument attempts to show inductively that the existence of God is not likely. This form is much

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.

On the topic of the existence of God, Ernest Nagel and Richard Swinburne have construct arguments that challenge one another. In Nagel’s article, “Does God Exist?” he argues that if God is all-powerful, omniscient, and benevolent; he would know when evil occurs and has the power to prevent it. Because evil occurs, God does not exist. This is the problem of evil. Challenging Nagel, the article by Swinburne, “Why God Allows Evil,” argues that God has the right to allow moral and natural evils to occur because those evils reap greater goods that make the lives of human-beings meaningful. He extends his argument to the idea that God seeks to provide human beings with goods such as freewill and responsibility of not only ourselves, but of the world and others. While Nagel utilizes the problem of evil as an objection to the existence of God, Swinburne employs it to show that God allows evil to occur to provide human beings with goods that go beyond moments of pleasure and joys of happiness.

This paper will discuss J.L. Mackies logical argument from evil and how in actuality, Alvin Plantinga’s whole argument is an attempt to delegitimize Mackie’s argument. Mackie’s main argument is that these three concepts cannot exist in the world and all be true; evil, gods omnipotence, and gods omnibenevelonce. Mackie’s argument hinges on the idea that evil is real, in which case one of the other two claims about god has to be false. First, one has to understand why evil, omnipotence, and omnibenelovence cannot all exist simultaneously.

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

Problem of Evil Throughout our lives, we experience and observe occurrences that seem to be good and others that seem to be evil. Some of us grew up in church and believed that God has a purpose or plan for all the circumstances that we experience, good or bad. Others don’t believe in a creator or God and instead live with the assumption that life is great at times and at other times is terrible, without rhyme or reason. The problem of evil seems to ultimately criticise God and christian beliefs.

The theological problem of evil is a problem that many philosophers have tried to solve. The problem is stated as, "if one believes that god is omnipotent and wholly good, why does evil still exist?" In this writing I will discuss the solutions/propositions of John L. Mackie in his work, "Evil and Omnipotence." I will do this in order to illustrate the concept of free will for understanding or resolving the problem, and to reveal how and why Mackie arrives at his conclusions.

The problem of evil is the argument that if God is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and benevolent. This implies that if God exists then he knows how to, wants to, and can prevent all suffering. If such a God existed, though, then he would prevent all types of evil. Although evil in all forms is an everyday part of the world around us; it has not been prevented. Therefore, God does not exist. More precisely if God exists then he is all-knowing, almighty, and perfectly good, if God were these then the world would not contain evil. There is evil in the world both moral and natural, so God does not exist. If God does exist, then there would be no evil. The existence of evil makes Gods existence rationally impossible.