The Transcendental Argument Analysis

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.

Humans simply cannot know all there is to know in order to conclude God and evil are incompatible. This popular argument attempts a total refutation of LPE; however, it does not directly address LPE, choosing rather to sidestep the immediate issue and attack human cognitive limitations. The argument, while successful in sense, lacks satisfactory closure to LPE and opens an epistemological Pandora’s Box, where everything we know becomes suspect. Consequently, this approach is not a strong one.

If god was all good, all powerful and all knowing, he would not allow the existence of evil.

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

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

1. Because of man’s ignorance and curiosity, arguments for the existence of God have been made over the years. Basically, these arguments are divided into two large groups i.e. logical and metaphysical. Actually, these arguments seek to prove that the existence of a being or having faith with at least one attribute that only God could have is logically necessary.

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 logical problem of evil basically states that there is an inconsistency with the existence of God and the existence of evil. In other words, saying that God is all good, omnipotent and omniscient, meaning that he knows everything and has absolute power, it doesn’t not make sense to conceive that he would let evil exist in the world. It explains that evil is bad and a good God want to get rid of it and he would know exactly how to do that. So if evil still exist then God must not exist according to the logical concept. At first look, this argument makes complete sense and seems unbreakable, however there were some evident holes in the argument. The part that this argument did not take into account is that God may have not caused evil to exist or maybe he has but for a special purpose.

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.

In the book of Genesis in the Bible, God created the heavens and the Earth and all was good. God told Adam and Eve that they can eat from all the trees in the Garden of Eden except for one, The Tree of Knowledge and Good and Evil. God was and is compassionate enough to give the beings he created freedom of choice. Nobody wants someone who is forced into love. God also does not want us to be made to love Him but wants us to do so out of our own free will. That free will that God gives us is the source of evil. Just as Adam and Eve used the free will God gave them to be disobedient and sin, human beings evil because of their freedom to do so. In addition to free will God allows evil to exist because without it, the beings he created could not develop ethically. The Problem of Evil states that God cannot be all loving, all good, all powerful and everywhere because evil exists. Philosopher, John Hicks states that evil is necessary for soul and moral development. How would humans know that is good without it counterpart for comparison? In situations like the Charleston church shooting, where loved ones lives are violently taken by evil, the families of the victims are made to develop morally. When confronted with evil, violence, and grief, they either exhibit patience, love, courage, forgiveness, acceptance, and/or faith. Otherwise they conform or give into evil and become timid, weak, angry, or even become violent themselves. Without evil our world would be blissful.

Lastly, Aron’s lives an adventurous lifestyle but he’s not a transcendentalist. Aron had to overcome a tremendous tragedy by amputating his arm and being stuck in a canyon for six days. However, after reading the book and watching 127 hours Aron is not a transcendentalist. When he was stuck he did not show confidence, self reliance or solitude. The only characteristic of transcendentalism that he demonstrated was simplicity. He brought very little water, food and gear because he didn’t want to carry the extra weight but had he brought enough water and food he would not have been forced to drink his own urine. The transcendental characteristic he possessed could have killed him. Overall, Aron is not a transcendentalist because he is arrogant,

The argument against the existence of God is incompatible with the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God.

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.

People believe that if evil exists then so does God, and vice versa. It is also a common belief that this perfect being is the creator of everything and everyone. From atom to atom and from molecule to molecule, he designed all of it. It is also believed that this God has no flaws and is indeed a perfect being. However, some people will tend to disagree. Ernest Nagel, an American philosopher, proposed a series of counterarguments to many classic arguments on behalf of God’s existence. He dismisses arguments such as the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, and the argument of design, by quickly pointing out their flaws. But just as there are people who discredit God’s existence, there are people who argue that he does exist. Richard Swinburne, a British philosopher, provides his own series of arguments on why God exists. Moreover, his arguments are centralized around the problem of evil. In “Why God Allows Evil”, Swinburne discusses rationale behind God allowing evil to exist. To keep it short and sweet, Swinburne believes that there are two types of evils, moral and natural, and that they exist for a reason.

The problem of evil is as ancient as humanity itself. Since the dawn of man, thinkers, philosophers, religionists and practically every human being who have suffered at the hands of evil have pondered this enigma, either as a logical-intellectual-philosophical or emotional-religious-existential problem. The preponderance of evil as a reality in human existence, and