ipl-logo

Lewis Argument Analysis

1406 Words6 Pages

Title: Defend the Argument from Evil
Name: Jun Hao Li
Word Count: 1394
Prompt you are responding to: Prompt (3)

Defend the Argument from Evil
Intro:
Since ancient time, people have used the abundance of evil and suffering within our world to challenge the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good God. The argument being that is such a God exists, he would be able and willing to exterminate evil. Seeing that evil still exists, supporters of the Argument from Evil have concluded that an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good God does not exist. Theists have defended the existence of God by arguing that the existence of evil is a result of human’s possession of free will and to preserve the greater good of free will, …show more content…

Decision are not made in advance.
Therefore, free will is possible under an omniscient God.

Response to Objections
While Lewis made a valid argument in defense of Theological Fatalism, he has failed to recognize that predestination, in any form, still warrants that one’s actions will be predetermined. Opponents of Lewis’ argument would argue that even though god exists in an timeless realm, we still can not act out of free will. The argument is as follows:
God timelessly knows that I will do C.
If god timelessly knows that I will do C,then C is now-necessary.
If C is now-necessary, then I cannot perform an action that is not C.
Therefore, free will is not possible under an omniscient god. ("Foreknowledge and Free Will.”)
Defenders of the Argument from Evil have challenged the last premises of the presented by the critics of Theological Fatalism and have shown that free will is not possible under an omniscient god.

Conclusion
In conclusion, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good God cannot coexist with evil. Therefore, seeing that evil still exists in this world in terms of natural disaster and human suffering, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good God cannot

Show More
Related
55 Words | 1 Pages

William Rowe addresses the problem of evil through an examination of the relationship between the existence of evil with an omnibenevolent, omniscient creator. His argument stems from the notion that because human and animal suffering is so intense, an atheist is rational in their belief and that the co-existence of evil and God is unlikely.

Read More
933 Words | 4 Pages

Questioning if God is not omnipotent, the entire idea of God creating the world can be called into question. Another issue is that if it is said that God is no longer entirely good there is the possibility to say that God has evil or bad intentions, and we should denounce him. Lastly, if one says that evil does not exist, then there is no possible way to separate those people who are considered to be deviants of society. This would mean that those who commit crimes that are evil in nature like murder and rape would be considered to be normal and acceptable.

Read More
996 Words | 4 Pages

However, evil does exist. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist. The evidential problem of evil states that since evil does exists, evidence alone is incompatible with a perfect God, and thus negates the possibility of God 's existence. There exist

Read More
821 Words | 4 Pages

Mass Hysteria is a well known occurrence that involves a group of people that go through an event that may or may not be real that creates paranoia and fear.1 It is sometimes referred to as a physical illness that contributes to hallucinations and having weird symptoms because of a certain witnessing of actions that are questionable. This concept has existed for hundreds of years, and still occurs today in society. Examples of mass hysteria includes 9/11, the holocaust, school shootings, witchcraft, and the ebola outburst. A mass hysteria that was popular in the 1960’s-1970’s was the Zodiac Killer, a horrific murder that shocked society and changed their lives to be surrounded by fear and anxiety.

Read More
436 Words | 2 Pages

In this reading reflection I will be discussing Richard Swinburne’s argument on “Why God Allows Evil” which starts on page 254 in “Exploring Philosophy: An Anthology” by Steven M. Cahn. This was also discussed in class on 9/15/16. In his argument Swinburne states that “An omnipotent God could have prevented this evil, and surely a perfectly good and omnipotent God would have done so. So why is there evil?”(Swinburne, 254).

Read More
623 Words | 3 Pages

Lewis proved he was not one for hesitation when it came to voicing his theories about the universe. Carefully manufacturing his first theory with inductive reasoning, Lewis is sure to incorporate logical thinking in his argument for the Law of Human Nature by pointing out different pieces of evidence to larger, more universal statements. He makes general observations after comparisons with different universal laws as well as different civilizations throughout time. Following these remarks, he delves further into his theory that people don’t need to be taught the Law of Nature, but that almost everyone knows it by nature. In the second paragraph, Lewis further establishes logical persuasion by pointing out his “Power Behind” theory with deductive reasoning.

Read More
1596 Words | 7 Pages

Religion and its Fallibility under the Scrupulous Light of Rational Inquiry: the Satirical Critiques of Voltaire and George Bernard Shaw For those perplexed by the overabundance of evil in the world, religion has always provided an avenue for hope, and people throughout history have sought God for understanding, and reconciliation. If God, by definition, is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, how do we account for the immense suffering, evil, and injustice that exists in the world? Moreover, a world with an astronomical amount of pain and unnecessary suffering? Could such evil exist and the existence of the aforementioned God still be plausible? To address the problem of evil, philosophers and theologians have put forth theodicies,

Read More
893 Words | 4 Pages

Theorists opposing this argument hold that morality is not dependent on the will of God. These theorists limit God’s omnipotence is stating clearly that he cannot make what is wrong, right. The theorists then suggest that God has to bend His will to conform to what is right. They hold that God wills what is morally right because it is right. In this argument, I take the stand that morality is what God wills it to

Read More
295 Words | 2 Pages

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?

Read More
500 Words | 2 Pages

In this essay, I will argue that the compatibilist definition of free will as a reply to the problem of evil is possible under one condition: suppose that there is no contradiction in the supposition that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, and God creates human who engage in moral evil. First, I will introduce both compatibilism and libertarianism. Next, I will address the reason Plantinga chose to adopt libertarian conception of free will, instead of the libertarian ones. Furthermore, I will replace Plantinga’s libertarian version with the compatibilist version and explain how the compatibilist version works by simply redefining compatibilism.

Read More
1089 Words | 5 Pages

The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.

Read More
1372 Words | 6 Pages

Although God’s existence and the validity of the experiences that may imply God’s existence is still not known, it is enough to say that logically, evil can exist along with God and his properties, even in today’s

Read More
1438 Words | 6 Pages

In chapter three of Aquinas for Armchair Theologians by Timothy Renick, Aquinas’s philosophy on evil in the world and the free will of humans is heavily discussed. Renick describes a very complex topic and transforms it into something the average person can read and understand. Aquinas answers the questions of whether evil exists, did God create evil, why does evil exist, and if evil exists, who or what removes it. He also answers the questions of whether humans have the free will to make decisions or has God predetermined every decision and its outcome according to his plan. While I found this article somewhat easy to follow, I can understand how some of Aquinas’s arguments can lead to debate or confusion on the nature of God, evil, and free will.

Read More
877 Words | 4 Pages

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).

Read More
1088 Words | 5 Pages

Humans have free will, but God knows their fate. In Book V of the City of God, Saint Augustine discusses the matter of fate and free will pertaining to having a relationship with God. Within that section of the text he makes many statements about how humans have the freedom to make their own choices, but God ultimately knows the outcome. Logically, this make sense. If God created everything, then this would mean He has created everything in the past, present and future.

Read More

More about Lewis Argument Analysis

Related Topics

Open Document