preview

The Argument For The Existence Of God

Decent Essays
Open Document

In this paper, I’m going to argue for the existence of God. I'm going to accomplish this by, proving that God can exist in the world with evil, proving that God is necessary for our world to exist, and finally proving that morality is a result of God. To make this paper clearer, I'm going to define a few terms used in my paper. Evil is the pain and suffering in our world, and I use it in two different ways. First, moral evil, the result of our free will, that allows to treat other humans inhumanely. Secondly, natural evil, suffering in the world that is caused not by human's free will, but by naturally occurring incidents in our world. Next, God is a being that none greater is possible and is that being that has all great-making properties …show more content…

The Logical problem of evil believes that all theist hold a contradiction when they believe that God and evil can exist. Premise one states that God, being omnipotent would be able to prevent or eliminate all the evil and suffering in this world. Premise two follows with, an omniscient god would know about all the evil and suffering in this world, and would know how to prevent or eliminate all the evil and suffering in the world. Premise three says an omnibenevolent God would want to prevent or eliminate all the evil and suffering in this world. Finally, premise four acknowledges that there is evil and suffering in this world, so we are forced to concluded that there is no God. However, the theist has two responses to the logical problem of evil, first the theodicy and also a defence. The theodicy is championed by CS Lewis and gives the reason God exist in the world with evil. God permits it. When God made humanity, he wanted us to love him back and make moral decisions on our own. For humanity to do this, it is required us to have free will. If we didn’t have free will, our thoughts and actions wouldn’t be our own but God’s, and it would make our love a contradiction. Therefore, free will make love possible. However, it also makes evil possible. The possibility for evil is necessary for love. This argument isn’t perfect, though. It fails to answer how also we have …show more content…

He replaced the problem of evil and asked, why is God omnibenevolent yet, permit there to be so much pointless and gratuitous violence in the world. The answer is, God wouldn’t allow that to happen. However, because there is gratuitous evil in our world, then an omnibenevolent God does not exist. Theist and I fail to see the connection between premises one and two in Rowe’s argument. He states that we don’t know of any good that would justify all the gratuitous violence in the world, and God would be unable to create any good from the evil. However, our knowledge is minuscule to that of God. So we are unqualified to make a statement like that about God and his ability to shape evil into good. With that the argument is proven false and non sequitur. However, this brings up one detail that is hard to swallow. It states that because evil a necessary for good, and hating evil would be a contradiction. Some argue that we can hate evil because evil is a parasite of the good that God

Get Access