Theist Argument

The problem of evil cripples reasonable belief in the God of theism and although successful theodicies have been made to subvert the problem of evil, they cannot get rid of the doubt and for some the proof that God does not exist.

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.

In 1968, H.J. McCloskey, an Australian Philosopher wrote an article titled “On Being an Atheist” which is an attempt for his personal reasons to reject the belief in God. In the article McCloskey criticizes against the theistic proofs, which are cosmological argument and the teleological argument. Majority of the article is focused on the evil issues and catastrophic events to innocent people in a world that is supposedly designed by an omnipotent and loving God, which McCloskey believes is a valid case in his arguments against cosmological and teleological arguments as well as his assertions that evil is proof against God’s existence. But, it still remains that the most reasonable explanation for the creator of the universe

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

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

In Richard Swinburne’s Natural Evil, he argues that the free will defense accounts for the existence of evil. Following Swinburne’s example, I will argue that the Problem of Evil does not give us good reason to believe that an omnipotent, benevolent deity does not exist. To do so, I will first summarize Epicurus’ original question of the problem of evil. Then, I will defend my claim by proposing the free will defense. Furthermore, I will discuss how the concepts of benevolence and omnipotence are inconsistent with the definition of God according to the free will defense. Lastly, I will address and respond to a possible objection to my argument.

Does the problem of evil pose a challenge for theists and the existence of God? The problem of evil argues that there is so much suffering in the world that an all-good and all powerful God would not allow such suffering to exist. Therefore, a God with those characteristics does not exist. Unless the suffering is necessary for an adequate reason. Some people argue that suffering is necessary for there to be good and for us to able to understand what good is. In this paper, I will argue that suffering does not need to exist in order for good to exist, because the existence of good does not depend on suffering. I will then argue that good and suffering are not logical opposites. Finally, I will conclude that since evil is not justified, then the God that we defined does not exist.

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 question of whether or not God exists has been asked by billions of people since the concept of religion emerged. Many people try to explain things such as hurricanes and tornadoes as “Acts of God” or even the existence of human beings and the world itself to be “created” by an almighty power. Others claim that the harm they inflict was demanded of them by their God. CS Lewis argues that through the comprehension of standards of good and bad, God’s existence is proven. However, Lewis’s defense for the existence of God is adequate because it fails to acknowledge the possibility for people to be good on their own, without the instruction of a supernatural entity.

Law’s position is based on the principles of traditional theodicy, which reconciles a benevolent Deity with the presence of evil in the world (Law, 2011). Basically, he argues that this point of view mirrors a similar situation, in which the presence of good in the world could be reconciled with the existence of an evil God. In general, he believes that the same reasons that are used to prove the existence of the

The laws of nature also attempt to defend God. A theist claims that the laws of nature creates evil, and it is irrational for God to intervene in every case of suffering and danger. If God did become involved, it would be impossible for anything to be predictable. In other words, nature and the cause and effect that people know would not be consistent or reliable. Johnson agrees that God’s involvement in every disaster would be wrong. As Johnson states, “To argue that continued miraculous intervention by God would be wrong is like insisting that one should never use salt because ingesting five pounds of it would be fatal” (Pojman 123). However, God should step in to stop or prevent the most horrific of disasters. Where is the line drawn, though? Johnson says it should be on the side of intervening more than not. Even if it is not known where to draw the line, no excuse should be made to not interfere in instances of pure evil. Thus, the laws of nature do not excuse the coexistence of God and evil.

In Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God , Marilyn McCord Adams uses another kind of defense for theism. In this reading Adams argues that the problem of evil has been directed at theism in general, which in this case has caused readers on either side of the debate to miss how important and how unique Christianity is to the problem of horrendous evils on this view. She argues that Christianity has a variety of unique tools that can meet the problem of evil more effectively when not abstracted into simply classical theism.

omniscient being is all-knowing, God knows how to put an end to evil, but doesn’t.