The Metaphysical Foundations Of God

In this paper, I will present to you the problem of evil and the criticisms it faces as evil and deities coexists in one ______. Starting out it is important to understand where the dissonance comes from. How can God, an inherently ‘good’ figure, said to know everything, exist in a world where evil exists? If God knows everything that is going to happen, and does not do anything to prevent evil from occurring, or can we label him as a good figure? The big question we must look at is God the cause of evil? The problem of evil proves to be the existence of evil in a world where we believe God to be all knowing, all good and all powerful. Through

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

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.

One of the main topic in the philosophy of religion is the discussion between theists and skeptics on the existence of God. Atheists say that there is a logical inconsistency between the existence of evil and the existence of God. However, theists believe that the mere existence of evil is not sufficient enough to completely dismiss the possibility of a morally perfect being existing This paper will discuss the logical inconsistencies between God and the “problem of evil” as well as the theist 's response to this argument through the free-will defense. In response, the atheist will address the problems evil that the free-will defense did not address, like natural evils. an argument that the thiests will attempt to dismiss using the “expanded free-will defense” which touches on humans primordial estrangement from God. Nonetheless, I feel the theist 's response fails to defend the existence of God because it does not fully address gratuitous evils or suffering from nonhuman beings.

In the third meditation of Descartes ' Meditation on First Philosophy, Descartes argues that his idea of God must have come from God himself. One can also wonder whether that very own argument could also apply when Descartes has an idea of the Evil Demon. In this paper, I will argue that Descartes would not think that his having an idea of the Evil Demon proves that the Evil Demon exists.

In Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion Philo Presents an interesting argument, which is referred to as the argument from evil. The basic idea of the argument is that because there is so much evil and pain in this world there is no way there is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. The purpose of this paper is to show that the argument fails, by defending a view on which the presence of evil is completely compatible with this type of God that has been described.

Many questions arise when attempts are made to explain the problem of evil and why it exists in our world when God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good. The subject of evil and why it exists is a difficult topic to find an exact answer to, especially when evil is presented in the form of nature. Natural evil and moral evil are two different types of evil that take form and cause suffering to humans. Natural evil is “events and maladies in nature that bring suffering upon mankind and nature.” Natural evil can be difficult to explain because it does not seem likely that a tornado or hurricane is the result of a human acting in sinful ways. Moral evil has to do with the bad things people do to cause suffering. According to Reese, moral evil is “by the choice of human free will, an individual breaks a moral, ethical standard and causes suffering upon self, others or nature.” Many ways used to describe the problem of evil are in the form of a theodicy. A theodicy is an “attempt to offer different answers to the problem of evil.” Two of the theodicies discussed in this paper will be the Augustinian Theodicy and the Iranaean Theodicy. Both theodicies direct their explanations toward moral evil than natural evil. First, the Augustinian theodicy and the pros and cons associated with its attempt to explain the problem of evil will be discussed.

I will accept this definition for God; therefore, when I say “God” in this paper, I will be referring to an all-powerful, all-good, and all knowing being. However, I will not accept the synonymous relationship between the word “evil” and the phrase “pain and suffering”. While it is true that pain and suffering are evil, it is not a sufficient definition of “evil” for the reason that the definition of a category cannot be a few examples of subjects in that category. That would be similar to defining the word “animal” as dogs and cats. Though the knowledge that known that dogs and cats are both animals is coherent, one does not accept this as the correct definition for “animal”. Similarly, the definition of “evil” should not be defined solely as items that are generally thought as being members of the category of being “evil”. Instead the definition should associate “good” and “evil” as part of the same spectrum of relativity. The term “spectrum of relativity” refers to a mode used to measure a relative characteristic of a being. As in any spectrum, there is an assumption that there are two extremes that are polar opposites. This is the best way to picture the difference between the two words allows the understanding of the definitions of “good” and “evil. It can be useful to consider other words that are seen on as part of the same spectrum: hot, heavy, and tall. These words describe a sort of

Why does evil exist on earth? This is a central point on the issue of the problem of evil. Atheists and theists attempt to account for this question in their own philosophical perspectives. Epicurus’ paradox of evil raises a dilemma for the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God and evil. This tradition affirmed the following three propositions: “God is all-powerful (including omniscient), God is perfectly good, and evil exists” (Pojman 69). The paradox of evil diminishes God’s Omni-qualities, that is, it is inconsistent with the traditional theistic view of God.

The characterization of God differs through each story, which

Introduction: The problem of evil is, in my opinion, the best point of departure for a fruitful dialogue between Christianity, traditionally conceived, and those strands of modern philosophy which have been perceived--indeed, have sometimes perceived themselves--as a threat to that tradition. As such, I will attempt first, to outline the problem of evil in the starkest terms possible, presenting Augustine's approach to its solution followed by a critical analysis; second, to present an alternative approach to the questions which give rise to the problem--an approach derived in large part from Spinoza and Nietzsche; and, third, to show how this more philosophically acceptable alternative can be expressed

There are many questions today as to the theodicy problem and why bad things happen. In this paper, I write about my approach to the problem of evil and why bad things happen to good people. This paper responds to the problem of evil in five ways. First we perceive God as an evil God, and we define the nature of evil. Free will, natural evil and life values are also seen as a resolution to the problem of evil.

Throughout this essay I will be assessing the question “Does the problem of evil argument show that God Does not exist” and I aim to show how it proves that god Does not exist. I aim to do so by analyzing the problem of evil arguments premises and conclusion as well as assessing the following arguments and objections: Necessary evil; The free will defense; the problem of natural evil, logical argument and the evidential argument.

In this paper, we are interested in two versions of the problem of evil. The first is the Logical Problem of Evil which claims that any existence of evil, ranging from paper cuts to genocide, is incompatible with the existence of an all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful God. It follows that from the mere existence of evil we can conclude that God lacks at least one of his “Omni” attributes which poses a problem to some theists who believe in a perfect God. The other type is the Evidential Problem of Evil which claims that even if we are able to reconcile evil with the existence of God, the sheer amount of evil in this world makes it highly unlikely that God exists. That is, it is not the existence of evil that contradicts with God’s qualities;

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.