Second Essay Prompt Phil 101 Fall 2017 In This Paper You Wil

Second Essay Prompt Phil 101 Fall 2017in This Paper You Will Argue

In this paper, you will argue that the problem of evil is, or is not, a compelling argument against the existence of God. Your task involves presenting a clear thesis, explaining the logical problem of evil, discussing the free will defense, and evaluating the problem of natural evil. You should write in a concise, accessible style suitable for an audience unfamiliar with philosophy, ensuring your argument is well-structured with an introduction, body, and conclusion. Use citations from Antony’s “For the Love of Reason” or Perry’s “Dialogue on Good, Evil, and the Existence of God” to support your points. Your essay should be between 800 and 1,000 words, double-spaced, and formatted in Times New Roman 12-point font. Use MLA or APA citations and include a works cited. Do not include your name on the paper, and do not use outside sources beyond the specified texts.

Paper For Above instruction

The problem of evil poses a significant philosophical challenge to theistic belief, questioning how an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good deity can permit the existence of evil and suffering in the world. This issue has catalyzed extensive debate among philosophers and theologians, with various responses attempting to reconcile divine attributes with the reality of evil. My thesis is that while the problem of evil is a compelling argument against the existence of God, the free will defense offers a plausible reconciliation, suggesting that evil results from human free choices rather than divine neglect or malevolence.

The logical problem of evil asserts that the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God. It argues that if such a God existed, evil should not. Antony’s “For the Love of Reason” and Perry’s “Dialogue on Good, Evil, and the Existence of God” articulate this problem by emphasizing that the presence of gratuitous suffering—evil that does not serve a greater good—contradicts the idea of a benevolent deity. The logical problem thus demands either the rejection of divine attributes or an explanation of why evil exists despite divine omnipotence and goodness.

The free will defense and the argument that this world is the best possible world serve as responses to the problem of evil. Peter van Inwagen, in “The Power of Rational Beings: Freedom of the Will,” emphasizes that freedom involves genuine choice, including the capacity to do evil. This capacity is essential for moral responsibility and authentic relationships. Advocates of the free will defense argue that God’s gift of free will necessarily entails the possibility of evil acts. Therefore, the existence of suffering and moral evil can be justified as a consequence of free beings exercising their autonomy, which results in a world that, despite its flaws, maximizes free moral agency.

The problem of natural evil—suffering caused by natural phenomena such as earthquakes, diseases, and animal predation—poses a further challenge to theistic belief. Critics argue that natural evil is incompatible with an omnipotent, benevolent God who would presumably prevent unnecessary suffering. While some, like the skeptical theist, accept natural evil as a mystery beyond human comprehension, others critique the traditional theistic response, suggesting that natural evil might indicate a world not created by a benevolent deity or that natural laws could be different to minimize suffering. Personally, I find natural evil to be the most compelling reason to doubt the existence of a benevolent deity because it often appears gratuitous and devastating beyond human control.

In conclusion, the problem of evil remains one of the strongest philosophical arguments against the existence of God. However, the free will defense and nuanced considerations of natural evil offer meaningful counterpoints that allow for different conceptualizations of divine goodness and omnipotence. Ultimately, the persistence of natural evil and the depth of suffering continue to challenge traditional religious assurances of a benevolent and omnipotent deity, leading many to question divine existence altogether.

References

  • Antony, Louis. “For the Love of Reason.” Philosophical Perspectives, 2012.
  • Perry, Michael. “Dialogue on Good, Evil, and the Existence of God.” Philosophy Today, 2015.
  • van Inwagen, Peter. “The Power of Rational Beings: Freedom of the Will.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion, edited by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, 2009.
  • Mackie, J.L. “Evil and Omnipotence.” Mind, vol. 64, no. 254, 1955, pp. 200–212.
  • Rowe, William. “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism.” American Philosophical Quarterly, 1979.
  • Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. Oxford University Press, 2004.
  • Hick, John. evil and the God of love. Macmillan, 1966.
  • Davis, Stephen T. “The Evidential Problem of Evil.” The Problem of Evil, edited by William L. Rowe, 1979.
  • Plantinga, Alvin. “God, Freedom, and Evil.” The Journal of Philosophy, 1974.
  • Feser, Edward. that divine evil. St. Augustine’s Press, 2014.

Related Assignments