Examples Of Mccloskey's Objection To Theism

Free will is what makes love, peace, and joy possible. Because of the freedom to choose good or bad, evil is in the world. Another reason evil exists is that people tend to put themselves first over others and God which ultimately leads to their demise. Only true happiness and joy can exist within God. Despite humans making a mess of everything, God still pursued His children and gave His one and only Son, Jesus Christ.

Evaluation of Keith Ward's reply "The Evil God Challenge — A Response" (2015) When examining the monotheistic belief, the foundational aspect of it is the description of an omniscient, omnipotent, and "good" God. Throughout Stephen Law’s paper, “The Evil God Challenge”, this supreme being is hypothesized to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent, a theory he refers to as the "good-god hypothesis". Regarding God’s morality, Law also poses an alternate view, stating that, assuming the existence of God, it is just as reasonable to believe that God is malevolent, despite this view being dismissed by the majority of theists. Keith Ward argues, in his response, that the monotheistic God can only be benevolent.

On the teleological argument, McCloskey’s claim that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed” is not reasonable. Why does one side of the equation need examples and the other does not, is not a fair assessment of a problem. There should always be examples to prove that each side is disputable or undisputable for the premise. A person can assume that a statement is true but that does not make the argument true and in all fairness why would that argument be considered true without some type of proof. The teleological argument is to show probability of theism, exhibit purpose of order, design and infer that the cause must be an intelligent

This is so because it becomes difficult to know whether moral goodness is independent of the will of God or if it is as a result of His will. The Euthyphro dilemma offers two intensely differing sides. On one side of the argument, theorists are of the opinion that morality is whatever God wills. This position then brings into question the goodness of God’s will if His command vindicates what is wrong. Arguing that goodness is the determined by God shows that what is rights is so because God wills it to be right.

If God creates creatures that are significantly free, he cannot determine them to do only what is right meaning he must create creatures that are capable of moral evil. Therefore, God cannot guarantee that there will not be evil in the world because a world containing creatures that are significantly free to perform more moral good than evil actions are more valuable. An omnipotent being (God) can't make contradictions be true. Therefore, if God creates a world where there are beings with free will. God can't guarantee that some creatures won't sometimes choose to act badly.

A theodicy attempts to explain why a just and good God would ever allow the existence of evil on earth. The Free Will Theodicy states that the reason that God would not prevent suffering is that “the suffering of the innocent is justified by the existence of free will”. This theodicy also claims that there are natural evils (such as accidents, diseases, etc.) and moral evils, and that moral evils only exist due to humans misusing their sense of free will. According to the play Macbeth by William Shakespeare the awareness that a deed is immoral is what makes fulfilling the deed evil. Nothing an animal does can be seen as cruel because their actions are purely instinctual, mankind is unique in that we have free will and sense of right and wrong, which means that we are the only species capable of true cruelty or evil.

JL Mackie was persuasive in his argument by showing that belief in an almighty God is not rational. He proves this by posing the problem of evil. According to JL Mackie, if God exists and is omniscient, omnipotent, and good then evil would not exist. However, evil exists in this world, sometimes in the form of undeserved suffering (diseases that affect humans, earthquakes, famines ...) and others perpetrated by man (murders, wars ...). If God exists and has the capability to be powerful, good, omniscient and omnipotent, why would he let evil be perpetrated?

There are two main ways in which natural evil operates to give humans those choices. First of all, natural evil provides chance for humans to learn how to bring the evil. For example, I can choose to ignore my sick friends instead of showing compassion towards the sufferer. If I get sick, I can either choose to spread it to others or subdue to disease and prevent it from spreading. Humans have the free will to choose to be good or evil.

In life, we have to make many choices. There is a constant struggle when it comes too good and evil. One cannot exist without the other. The choices we make however, determine the extent of our happiness. The obvious thing to say about evil is that it is the opposite of good.

On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it. I will begin by stating the objection the anti-theodicist gives for why it is wrong that there is a problem of evil. (<--fix) Regarding passive evil not caused by human action, the anti-theodicist claims that there is an issue with a creator, God, allowing a world to exist where evil things happen, which are not caused by human beings (180-181).

that men always freely choose what is right?” (McCloskey, 1968). Atheist side with McCloskey’s view that the individuals who put value in the choices of man controversy point to people making poor utilization of their free will. As indicated by Evans and Manis, the subsequent malevolence is because of mans mischief, not of Gods. The fact of the matter is, no one person knows for certain why a cherishing, decent, supreme God would permit malevolence and misery to exist.

This paper will discuss the problem of evil. In the first part, I will discuss Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s atheist stance and William Lane Craig’s theist stance on the problem of evil. In the final part of this paper, I will argue that Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s argument is stronger. The Problem of Evil

At the beginning of the article, Mackie states that the initial issue with God’s existence is that, “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, Paragraph 3). If god is such a pure and good being, then he should be able to combat all evil. The first statement that showcases that God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, then evil cannot possibly exist. The definition of omnipotent is

A lot of arguments have been known to prove or disprove the existence of God, and the Problem of Evil is one of them. The Problem of Evil argues that it is impossible to have God and evil existing in the same world. Due to ideal characteristics of God, evil should not have a chance to exist and make human suffer. In this essay, I will examine the argument for the Problem of Evil, a possible theodicy against the argument, and reply to the theodicy. First of all, to be clear, the Problem of Evil is an argument that shows that God cannot be either all- powerful, all-knowing, and/or all good.

The logical problem of evil is a problem between theists and atheist. Theists say that God is all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), and wholly good (morally perfect), while atheists say that there is a disagreement between the fact of evil and the idea that God is perfect and good. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing and wholly good, then why He doesn’t stop the evil from doing all bad things in this world? As a result, evil exist in this world, while God doesn’t exist. There is a difference between moral and natural evil.