The Vs. Teleological Defence

God is supposed to possess all the Omnis. And obviously he would not allow such evil and be Omnibenevolent. There goes one of the Omnis. Shouldn’t God be all powerful, therefore shouldn’t He be able to do away with evil? Well it’s here, it’s a problem, so maybe He can’t get rid of it. That would mean He’s not all powerful. God is already missing two Omnis as a result of evil. It is evident why an atheist would believe no God could exist despite the problem of evil. However, what if there is a reason beyond out comprehension as to why these bad things

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 theist, therefore, appears to be faced with a choice between a view which implies a kind of moral chaos and a life of moral immaturity, and one which belittles an Almighty God. One attempt to resolve this dilemma turns on the distinction

In the article “ On Being an Atheist,” H.J. McCloskey attempts to inform his readers that the belief in atheism is a “much more comfortable belief” by effectively using a disdainful rhetoric towards theists and their faith. McCloskey delves into both the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, which within he criticizes the arguments and to further his argument against theism, he also presents the Problem of Evil and why evil cannot possibly exist with a perfect God being the creator of universe. What will be displayed in this essay are the counter-arguments to McCloskey’s criticisms and the attempt to discredit his claims that regard the “comfortable” position that lies within atheism and its arguments.

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.

In this essay, I will briefly explain J.L. Mackie’s premises on ‘the problem of evil’ in relation to the non-existence of God. I will defend some of Mackie’s objections in his first and fourth possible solutions regarding human free-will. In conclusion, I will discuss as to why I agree with Mackie’s arguments and why that correlates to God as not being omnipotent or wholly good. Consequently, I will also explain why free-will produces social constructed standards of evil and good, and why God does not exist.

Some Abrahamic theists claim that the harmony of the universe is proof of an intelligent designer. This argument is known as the teleological argument and has evolved from classical philosophy to modern theology. In addition, subscribers of the Abrahamic religions also hold that God has attributes that include omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence. Fundamentally, God is all knowing, all-powerful, and all good. In contrast, God created a perfect universe that is in harmony, but occasionally practices miracles. Can the teleological argument, miracles, and God’s attributes coexist in a rational universe? This essay’s goal is to demonstrate that

The argument of choice that I’ve decided to use is the argument for design (Teleological argument) which states that complex objects themselves can very well prove the existence of powerful creator or a God. The Teleological argument tries to simplify the idea with a watchmaker stating that all the constantly moving cogs and devices in the watch prove the existence of a higher intelligence which is something incomprehensible that any organism could perceive in the present life. This leads to the idea of an uncaused causer since God is presumed to be the first entity that was able to put forth the universe in an ongoing motion of time. Everything in the watch is meant to represent the universe, planets, stars, and living organisms at work and in motion. The premise of this argument is demonstrated through the claim of God

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.

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.

We continue our study of the history of God by looking at His attributes from a number of different viewpoints. We will first examine the view of Classical Theism, then the view of Freewill Theism, and finally that of Open Theism. We begin by defining Classical Theism, also called traditional theism or Augustinian theism.

It is this learners goal for this paper to prove that God cannot prevent evil while preserving human free will, that the existence of both evil and God is possible, that it is impossible for God to constantly intervene and preserve the universe. Lastly, Christianity is the only practice providing meaning of life. This learner will attempt to prove these positions by analyzing the writings of Tom Morris, C.S. Lewis and William Lane Craig. Through this essay, this learner plans to bring a sound philosophical theological understanding of how both God and man (His creation) function in theory with each one another.

According to the logical problem, God and suffering are incompatible and that the existence of one causes for the other to be non-existent. This argues that logically the two are incompatible. The thought process for this is that if there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God then he must be morally perfect. If he is omnipotent and omniscient then he is aware of the existence of evil and has the ability to stop it. If God is benevolent then he would want to be merciful and eradicate evil. If there is evil then God either doesn’t have the power to stop it or has no desire to. Due to this flaw, God cannot be all perfect and therefore he can not exist (Phillipapeters). Aside from the logical problem there is also the evidential problem. This states that there is a large amount of suffering in the world that goes back countless millions of years. The assumption made for this theory is that God only allows suffering to occur if the suffering is for a greater good and works to decrease the suffering of a larger quantity of people. The flaw in the theory is that there is pointless evil. There are crimes that happen to innocent individuals and those are not for a greater good. Due to there being this pointless suffering and evil, there cannot be a God

Using ontology, the conclusion of God’s existence is that God is unique because he is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, which leads to his moral perfection. Some qualities of being morally perfect include being loving, benevolent and just. God has been thought to be the ultimate and sole creator, creating and conceptualising the world and everything in it. There are painfully unfair amounts of suffering in the world. In Australia alone, forty- seven thousand people will die of numerous variations of cancer. Over 40 million people are in poverty. Every 21 seconds, a child dies from thirst. Suffering is everywhere, and millions of innocent people are affected every single day. And that’s just statistics from this year alone. Suffering,

Have you ever encountered something and said to yourself “Why me?” Or have you wondered “Why do so many people lose their lives to murders or accidents?” There is so much suffering in this world that we hear about, including rapes, war, genocide, or natural disasters. Every person has different disasters and oftentimes we cannot come up with a possible reason these happen to us. This thought has led some philosophers, such as William Rowe, to believe that God does not exist. Although there are some logical possible reasons God permits evil, it seem unlikely that there are logical reasons for the huge amount of suffering the world experiences.