The Argument Of Evil As A Justification Of God’s Existence

With the presence of omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God, the claim on evil is absurd. Even though it has been difficult to have satisfactory answers to this question, there is no way God will allow nature of evil to take its course. In the first portion of this essay, I will address the reasons given on the evil situation by the external world, and the second section, I will provide the philosophical arguments put forward in justification of the problem on evil. Nonetheless, this paper will build on the freewill response and conclude that the issue seen with evil is not sufficient to prove that there is no Deity, or God.

For a real number of years, the atheists used the question of evil to contend about the presence of God. Throughout their opinion, the very same Deity is ubiquitous, pervasive, and transcendent, which means that without any limits, he is capable of holding on to absolute powers, wisdom, and perfection. Thus, they believe that if God does exist, it is not reasonable to have misery and suffering in the universe that he claims to have made. On the other hand, if God truly existed, and all-knowing as well as all-good. Why doesn’t He do anything to deter or make sure suffering thwarted in the universe? Consequently, as evil exists, it claims that God is not real.

Philosophical theories have replied to the question of evil, and one of them claims that the issue of sin is not adequately proved that God does not exist as evil is an object of higher intent created by the very same God (Hancock and Sweetman, 1998, pg. 63). Hancock retains this view in his articles regarding Truth and Religious Belief. Hancock believes that while evil is in the universe, it is balanced by a greater sense of good. An instance of a war starting and leading to victory is an illustration that the author gives on his claim about evil and God’s life.

Through all of this, the author argues clearly why God should give evil space and why God should use suffering to build a better future, accomplish it, and ensure development. As said by Hancock, the explanation for evil is God, and excuses it. Nevertheless, there is a positive approach that is useful in making sure that we recognize the non-free evil that is considered wrong. Lit can only be substituted with something better now that the connection between the misery factor and the compensation effect is obvious. For example, for me to guarantee that I compose a concise and practical article, I have to make sure that I collect information from the comprehension classwork and evaluate information that will eventually be put together to generate arguments and evidence to react to the task. Although I recognize challenges along the way, this work should give me a clearer understanding of the resources provided for the course at the end of it. When I work through the period of my school years, though, in the face of the gratuitous bad, I must earn my degree along the way; the more significant point that is good is pit to test.

However, the more significant good statement receives repossesses from the anti-theist that if the bad brings greater good, how is the gratuitous bad handled, this is so evil in the context that it does not yield any good (Swinburne, 2010, pg. 4). Which good thing would come out of a disaster that sweeps out the whole area, killing a substantial number of people? Which happens with sexual violence and political deaths? These are instances of gratuitous evil. Presuming that a portion of all those who passed away is a scientist who developed weapons of mass destruction and if left to live, the devastation he would have caused will suffice to kill a large number of people with a push of a button. That kind of situation is cut and dry, but it demonstrates how a real evil can come out of a nightmare evil as a relief.

In these situations, where there is a range of problems, it is therefore difficult for humans to make the correct decision. Consequently, it is also not possible to argue the correctly about what will happen in case of a legendary bad. The protection of free will is utilized to complain against the bad as it claims that God has guaranteed that a free will was given to all people to make choices about what they want to do. We have demonstrated how free will outweighs the awful human beings do. It is through these events that the gratuitous evil is clarified while it does not threaten God’s life. In other words, this gracious evil is allowed by God in exchange with free will.

When God created man, God’s primary objective was a reciprocal relationship. Without the free will that would have meant that in the relation- God is not genuine because human beings may appear as puppets governed by God alone. Therefore, free will was the deliberate decision of God to allow human beings to make their own choices. This kind of freedom gives human powers what they want their life to be without any external influence. I agree that there are evils that commit out of free will. The price of crime committed is carried by humans and can be compensated through the will of God.

There cannot be evil without God. This argument, however, does not mean that God planned the crime in the world he created, but it shows that the concept of evil is pro-human and wrong if there is no good to compare it. Swinburne, in his book ‘Is there a God’ emphasized that one of the essential premises of evil is that evil exists (Swinburne, 2010, pg. 3–19). Those who support the problem of evil have witnessed evil; they have recognized something as evil or claim to be part of knowing that sin is wrong. Anybody that can compare good and bad acknowledges the existence of God, who is the opposite of the crime. The argument, therefore, from the atheist society is wrong as they now some good that is associated with God. As soon as one claims that God doesn’t exist, they cannot continue to claim that there is good because that is God.

Hancock, in his book truth and religious belief, argues that a relatively good act is always related to God and that people will have a thought and conscious mind that helps them separate good from evil with a clear, distinct line (Hancock and Sweetman, 1998, pg. 63). Those who believe in the absence of God cannot have a different line drawn between good and evil because they cannot equate the good to anything else. This distinct division of right and harm confirms that the bad is already defeated because the world comprises of better than evil and that evil is considered misfortunes that beset human but are always regulated or prevented by a powerful

If God were not present, the existing society would see the likelihood of a lost planet. The kind of evils that exist is capable of putting an end to the world in which we live, a purpose which makes me believe that there is a god. This world, according to Christianity, is not the way God planned a healthy and ideal place to call home, but he keeps coming in to cleanse it and defend us from evil. Jesus ended up living a clean life, setting an example to replicate ostracizing evil and protecting other human beings the same way we would be doing for ourselves. It is a pledge in the long-term Holy scriptures where evil is ultimately defeated by linking back to the existence of a loving God who does not want evil.

So, I am against the claim that evil is justification enough to show that God does not exist. Jackson in the God of philosophy claims that God and evil coexist; it is that God only will use the question of evil to ensure that human beings have doubts that could result in a better society (Jackson, 2014).

Are God And Evil Real?

The question of God’s existence is an issue that I have personally been on the fence about for the past year and have kind of deliberately avoided investigating. I wasn’t sure how to go about it or why it was even important. Because I was putting off doing this for so long, having an assignment that required me to finally take the step to search for truth seemed ironic. Throughout the semester, we have been discussing arguments of God’s existence from philosophers like Anselm of Canterbury and his Ontological argument up against Thomas Aquinas’s “perfect island” rebuttal. We also have discussed God’s existence through free will and determinism. None of these arguments really convinced me one way or the other on the issue. I knew there had to be something more powerful of swaying my beliefs so I would no longer be a fence sitter on the matter. I happened to have a conversation with my older brother about God and the points he brought up struck a curiosity within me that I just couldn’t stop thinking about. How could God, who is omnipotent, allow so much suffering and pain in the world? I later discovered in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the argument to be called the problem of evil.

The problem of evil is very complex and lengthy but can be broken up into two sections. The first problem is called the logical problem of evil, the second being the evidential problem of evil. The logical problem suggests that it is logically impossible for God to be omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect while evil exists. If God has unlimited power and can do anything, he must not want to prevent evil for it is very obviously prominent in our world. If he knows about evil and he wants to intervene to prevent it, then he must not be able to, which means he is not omnipotent. If God lacks omnipotence, omnibenevolence, or omniscience, he is no longer God as defined by Judeo-Christianity. Since evil exists, God must be lacking at least one of those features which concludes God doesn’t exist. However, the argument doesn’t end there and many theist philosophers have objected with counter arguments or justifications for God’s lack of intervention.

The most notable counter argument used against the logical problem of evil is called the Free Will defense which was constructed by Alvin Plantinga. He suggests that in order for humans to have free will, which is a necessary and defining feature of what it means to be human, we must have the capacity to choose evil as well as good. He also states that God cannot do what is logically impossible. For example, he cannot make 4 + 4 = 9 because then what would 5+4 equal? Moral goodness cannot be known and chosen without knowing and having the ability to choose evil because it is logically impossible according to Plantinga. This brings into question whether or not in heaven, a perfect place that theists believe no evil can occur, humans will have free will. If humans are unable to choose evil in heaven, will they still be the same creatures? And if humans are able to retain their freedom of will in heaven but only choose to do what is right, why couldn’t God have created a world in which there are choices of evil, but humans always choose good? A world of that nature is certainly conceivable thus it is plausible and it is surely morally better than a world where humans sometimes choose evil and there is suffering. Another problem that is also brought into question is whether or not God has free will, for if he does not have the ability to choose or even want to do evil, he does not carry significant moral freedom. If God is only doing what he is programmed by nature to do, his actions are not good or evil therefore his morality isn’t worthy of being praised.

Plantinga’s argument can be ultimately summarized to God and evil can co-exist if God has a morally good enough reason to allow evil. While this may solve the problem of evil as it exists morally, it does not give an answer to diseases that kill thousands of innocent children by the day or to earthquakes and natural disasters that devastate hundreds of thousands of people. This is referred to as natural evil, to which Plantinga also has a rebuttal argument for. He states that natural evil was born of the first moral evil that Adam and Eve committed in the book of Genesis. The argument may not satisfy an atheist who does not believe that those events took place, but it still gives a plausible justifiable reason to why God allows natural evil to occur.

There is also the evidential problem of evil which was given by William Rowe who suggests that while it may not be logically impossible for God to exist, there are evils that are unjustified and unnecessary that exist which shifts the likelihood of God’s existence to be improbable. The only reason for an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being to allow evil was if he was morally justified to do so. However, Rowe suggests that there are evils in this world that are not justifiable, such as intense animal suffering or human suffering caused by natural occurrences. If God has no justifiable reason to not prevent suffering, wouldn’t he use his omnipotence to prevent or put an end to unnecessary suffering?

There are a lot of different arguments that provide grounds to believe or to not believe in the existence of God. Ultimately, over the hundreds of years that new arguments have come forward and been rebutted has not lead to any concrete truth or falsity on the matter. God’s existence cannot ever be a proven certainty so it is up to the individual to weigh the arguments and decide for themselves which arguments appear to be more logically sound to them. Personally, I find that if God cannot doing something, it contradicts his omnipotence. There may be a creator of the universe, but that does not mean it has to be omnipotent, omniscient, or morally perfect. Setting that standard seems to be absurd considering what evils do exist unnecessarily in our world. The problem of evil doesn’t necessarily prove that it is impossible for a God or creator of the universe to exist, but it does bring serious issues to the Judeo-Christian God as he is defined in religious texts.

The Existential Question About God

As I reflect upon my life, there is one personal truth that I have adopted in my mind; this truth is that I believe that God is nonexistent. My personal truth has dramatically changed from when I was a child to my formative adolescent years. As a child who strongly believed in the existence of God, I now identify as an atheist. The belief in God may provide hope and reassurance to some people, however, I find it to be a naive mindset. There have been a multitude of factors that have made me adopt this truth that God is nonexistent, such as my personal life experiences and the recognition of science in evolution.

Life is not like a box of chocolates, instead, it is filled with trouble, challenges, violence and turmoil, which I do not understand why God would allow. In the world, wars and natural disasters often kill innocent people, including young children, and displace many people. My own family was displaced from their home in India, due to war, losing their homes, belongings and even relatives. In my life, I faced troubles and challenges, especially after the loss of my grandparents; both did not have easy deaths, despite being good, loving people. Despite countless nights praying as a child, crying, and feeling as though my heart would break into a million pieces, the pain my family and I felt was not relieved from God nor were my prayers answered. It is incomprehensible as to why God would allow such pain and suffering in the world and among individuals, especially young children. Additionally, I believe that humanity’s existence is best explained through a scientific lens; Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the Big Bang Theory, have impacted my truth in the belief of God.

Although I consider my truth to be that God is nonexistent, it is important to understand that this ideology is subjective. The stance on this truth will vary among people from different locations and time periods, as one’s position in time and space affect what they believe. For example, living in Canada during the 21st century has given me the opportunity to express my opinions, value freedom of religion and speech, and question the information that I am being taught. In the past few centuries, the concept of religion and God was very much part of society, law, and daily life. Therefore, the truth for many people was that God exists. The concept of God began to be questioned during the Scientific Revolution and Age of Enlightenment, with these ideas becoming more widely accepted at a much later time. Freedom, education and a secular society has allowed me to find my own conclusions about the existence of God, whereas those with different exposure to science and education will have different information with which they will formulate their beliefs about God. Overall, it is important to identify that truths can simultaneously be yes and no, with one’s own truth depending on their position in time and space.

The Significance Of Science And Religion

There has always been a debate about religion and science. These two are important in our lives because both explain the two worlds of every human being— the physical and spiritual world. While both of them are essential, there has been a clash because of their fundamental differences; opposing ideas and purpose.

We are choosing Science. Science as an institution have on uniquely in contrast to specific researchers. Science sets up conditions where levelheaded arguments can prosper, where thoughts can be tried against the world, and where people can cooperate with one another with their individual constraints.

The Scientist are annoyed whenever the debate is about Science and Religion that share a specific epistemological reasoning. In fact, there are lots of humanists and theologians that demand that there are lot of different method in knowing the truth than religious narratives that only exist by folkloric stories and can be replaced or changed in time. Religion has no record of finding concealed facts. So, for what reason do such a large number of individuals accept something else? While science and religion are as various as can be, people science and society religion share profound properties. The majority of us convey in our minds a jumble of logical perspectives and religious perspectives, and they regularly feel the equivalent—since they are found out, comprehended, and rationally encoded in comparable ways.

Numerous religious stories are accepted without being comprehended. Individuals will regularly declare religious cases with certainty—there exists a God, he tunes in to my petitions, I will go to Heaven when I confess—yet with small understanding in the subtleties. The humanist Alan Wolfe sees that ‘zealous adherents are some of the time unable to clarify precisely what, doctrinal talking, their confidence is,’ and proceeds to take note of that ‘These are individuals who accept, frequently enthusiastically, in God, regardless of whether they can’t enlighten others all that much concerning the God where they accept.’

We believe that global warming is a serious problem and that vaccines do not cause autism, but this is not because we are studying in a course that circled medicine and have prior knowledge to this but because we trust the scientist. Science has always been the way to solve environmental issues. These type of issues are timely. According to Express (2019), the lungs of planet Earth, Amazon is still burning last September 25. The Amazon is burning for over a month now. Another one is the burning of rainforest in Indonesia making the air hazardous for people living there. When lives are at stake from out of control environmental issues, science can make more change and impact than religion. This time we need immediate action, “The climate math is brutally clear: While the world can’t be healed within the next few years, it may be fatally wounded by negligence until 2020,” said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the founder and director of Potsdam Climate Institute. Asking for guidance from our God alone won’t solve the problem. What we need here are scientific solutions and actions that would actually solve these problems. A hashtag has been circulating on social media, #UniteBehindTheScience, showing that even the youth doesn’t want just hope, what we need is to fear the things that are happening and things that can happen to our world and from that fear, we need REAL actions to solve our problems. Science has earned its epistemological stripes. What’s more, when a lot of people are open minded prior to the knowledge of truth, as they are with environmental change and immunizations, we ought to value its unique status.

For us, Science can and has the way to prove and disprove the existence of everything, from simple beliefs to complex things, even religion. There are many religious beliefs that only science was able to provide explanations based on facts. Science can be described as the body of knowledge because it makes us aware of factual things. Religion can be seen on different perspectives and each and every one can have different religious beliefs and even interpretation of the figurative holy books while science provides truth and factual statements with evidences supporting it making one ground for people to believe in and bringing us all to one conclusion. With science, we avoid confusions and misbeliefs. For example, the discovery of telescope was the first piece to fall over and cause the domino effect of the other discoveries like disproving the Earth-centered theory which the bible believed in. Through science we avoid a turmoil that can exist if we are still stuck on the era where we only believe what’s written on the holy book and still has no evidences to prove or disprove it.

We chose science because of its purpose to explain the physical world which is important because it is the place that we live in, we breathe in, and where our future will prosper. It uses scientific method which is a precise way of knowing the truth and isolate it from fallacies.

Philosophy of Freedom and Existence of God in The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoyevsky and Works of Sartre

In contemporary society, the issue of freedom holds a priority among most individuals. As a result, people have different opinions regarding the manifestation of freedom at the local and international level. Jean-Paul Sartre provides his thoughts on freedom in Existentialism is a Humanism. Also, Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky presents his argument on freedom in his novel, The Brothers Karamazov. The arguments of Sartre and Dostoyevsky’s are compared based on the existence of a God, the nature of the approach in achieving freedom, and the complexities of the freedom of choice, which reveals the comprehensivity of Sartre’s argument.

Both arguments concerning freedom presented by Sartre and Dostoyevsky are hinged upon the presence or absence of a higher authority. Sartre posits “that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it”. Based on Sartre’s argument, humans are the most superior beings on the earth and in the universe and should retain their ability to live among themselves in a manner, which they think is ideal after choosing those ideals. Conversely, Dostoyevsky defends the existence of a superior being that came before humans, which implies that their freedom belongs to the being. Dostoyevsky writes, “He deigned to appear for a moment to the people, to the tortured, suffering people, sunk in iniquity, but loving Him like children”. The dilemma in Dostoyevsky’s writing is the need to love a being that exposes them to endless suffering on the earth, which has the literal implication that the “keeper” of human freedom refuses to allow His creations to enjoy the luxury. The friction between Sartre and Dostoyevsky’s understanding of freedom starts at this point because of the ideology concerning existence.

Dostoyevsky’s argument is closely coined on a trial-error approach while Sartre’s is adamant that there is no absolute approach to the realization of true freedom. Dostoyevsky explains that long after the coming of Christ, “we see that everything in those three questions was so justly divined and foretold, and has been so truly fulfilled, that nothing can be added to them or taken from them” (4). At the core of Dostoyevsky’s thoughts on freedom within the institution of the Church are the three temptations. The faults of human beings that are made evident in the temptations are used as justification of the Church stepping into the position of Christ on earth. In consequence, people will give up their freedoms to a higher power in the same way as Christ gave up his freedoms because the temptations represent “all the unsolved historical contradictions of human nature” (Dostoyevsky, 4). There is a belief that the controversy between peace, happiness, and freedom can be resolved by using the same tactics that Satan used on the “most worthy” human, Jesus. Sartre emphasizes that “everyone can do what he likes, and will be incapable, from such a point of view, of condemning either the point of view or the action of anyone else”. Sartre counterargument is that principles handed down by God guide the responses to the temptations. Therefore, there cannot be a sure way of attaining freedom because, in a truly free world, everyone would do whatever they think is appropriate given their circumstances. If there is no way to predict the reaction of humans subjected to similar temptations in the contemporary world, the idea that some three questions define humanity is not practicable.

At a deeper level, the two philosophers debate whether humans can deal with the concept of freedom of choice. Dostoyevsky’s notes that humans are indeed weak and shall fall for the temptation of bread because faith has “cut down the suffering of men for a thousand years; for they will come back to us after a thousand years of agony with their tower”. It appears that the fate of man is somewhat written in stone, but the only variable is time. Surprisingly, Ivan states, “They will marvel at us and look on us as gods … so awful will it seem to them to be free” (Dostoyevsky, 5). Humanity’s tenacity to hold on to an absent God that does not seem to tend to their needs will be tested, especially when the cost of freedom is too high. Sartre demonstrates a stronger belief in the ability of human beings to make choices. Sartre explains that an individual is typically “confronted by two very different modes of action; the one concrete, immediate, but directed towards only one individual; and the other an action addressed to an end infinitely greater, a national collectivity, but for that very reason ambiguous”. According to Sartre’s line of thinking there usually is no simple, correct, and sure response when put in the position to choose because there is no clear set of values if one has no belief in the existence of a higher power. Instead, Sartre suggests that “nothing remains but to trust in our instincts”. At this point, it is evident that humans are susceptible to specific weaknesses, which will always result in a biased choice with the equivalence of no choice. However, the removal of religion from the picture complicates decision making further, but the individual makes an actual decision.

Sartre and Dostoyevsky present well-defended perspectives of on freedom, but Sartre’s argument is superior. Firstly, Sartre’s argument does not impose any conditions as compared to the need for the existence of a supreme being in Dostoyevsky’s argument. This implies that the argument works for humans in our original form at birth where we are not aware of the concepts of religions or ethics but merely exists as separate beings experiencing our environment. Secondly, the fixed minded nature of the path to attain freedom or lose it is not necessarily true. There usually is more than one technique to reach the desired solution, and none of them is usually more correct than the other. Finally, freedom of choice is not real freedom if individuals have been continuously persuaded to select a particular choice through Christian doctrine. On the whole, Sartre’s argument portrays freedom in its purest form.

Critical Essay on Anselm’s Ontological Argument as a Example of Indirect Proof

Over the course of history, many proofs have been created by great philosophers. Three kinds of proofs can be made: direct, indirect, or inductive. A direct proof is the most convincing in that there is no flaw in the logic. Each step in the proof is justified. An indirect proof is one that can be questioned. This is when you assume the opposite of what you want to prove and come up with a contradiction to it. Therefore, what you are actually trying to prove is shown to be true. An inductive proof is when you make assumptions in your argument without true proof. Most of the indirect and inductive proofs derived by philosophers have been criticized over the years and sometimes even proven wrong. A famous indirect proof that remains questioned today is Saint Anselm’s ontological argument. In his work, Anselm proves the existence of God. In this paper, I will summarize Anselm’s ontological argument and why he believes that it is impossible to be an atheist. I will also explain that I do not agree with Anselm’s proof because his argument has been weakened by strong objections from critics such as Gaunilo, Thomas Aquinas, and Immanuel Kant.

Saint Anselm was an important Christian philosopher of the eleventh century. In his famous work, ‘Proslogion’, he discussed that God truly exists. Anselm began his book by expressing that God is “something than which nothing greater can be conceived” (Saint Anselm, 40). To put it in other words, it is believed that God is the greatest thinking thing and no one can reach his level of understanding and achievement. Anselm also expressed that a thing exists in the imagination and, in reality, is greater than a thing that exists only in the imagination. He used a painter as an example to show this. He said: “When a painter plans out a painting, he has it in his understanding, but— not yet having produced it— he doesn’t yet think that it exists. After he has painted it, he has the painting in his understanding, and— having produced it— he thinks it exists” (Saint Anselm, 41). This scenario shows that it is greater to have something exist both in the understanding and in reality compared to only in the mind. If the painter did not create what he had in mind, he would not know if he could actually produce it on paper, and so it could not truly exist. Therefore, something that exists both in the understanding and in real life is better than something that is only imagined. Another example to show this is to imagine cooking your favorite meal. Then you actually make it. The question to ask yourself is which is greater, the one you imagined or the one you actually produced and enjoyed? The answer would be the one you produced and was happy with. This is because you had it in your understanding and were able to produce it in reality. Anselm held these ideas in his ontological argument.

Anselm begins his argument by saying that God can either exist in the imagination alone or in both the imagination and reality. He moves into saying that if God existed in both the imagination and in reality, then He would truly exist. But if He existed only in the imagination, then God, the greatest conceivable being, would exist only in the imagination. In that case, the greatest conceivable being is not the greatest conceivable being because of the fact that there would be something greater that existed in both the imagination and in real life. This is a contradiction because as Anselm says, “…something than which a greater can’t be conceived so truly exists that it can’t be conceived to not exist” (Saint Anselm, 41). He means that the greatest conceivable being cannot only exist in the mind as it is the greatest conceivable being who is believed to be above everyone. Therefore, He must exist in both the imagination and in reality. If that is true, then this greatest conceivable being must exist. Since God is believed to be this greatest thinking thing, then He truly exists. With this argument, Anselm proves that it is impossible to be an atheist as we cannot deny the existence of God, the greatest conceivable being.

As much as I would like to fully agree with Anselm’s unique argument, I would have to say that I do not think that it truly supports the existence of God, and therefore I would not consider the idea that atheists could not exist. His logic is clever and has left people thinking, however, I believe that it is flawed because the reasoning is too simple. This is shown through different objections that have risen over the years. These objections have definitely weakened his argument.

An important objection made to the famous argument was said by a monk named Gaunilo. He criticized Anselm’s proof because he believed that one could use his argument to prove the existence of bizarre and non-existing things. Gaunilo tells us to imagine the perfect island that no other island can top. This island is considered to be the greatest conceivable island. Using Anselm’s reasoning, he says that the island must exist both in the understanding and in reality. It cannot exist only in one’s imagination, or else it would no longer be considered the greatest possible island. This would happen because there would be other islands that do exist in both the imagination and in reality, and so they would be considered more excellent. Therefore, the amazing, almost impossible, island would have to truly exist. Gaunilo goes on to say that this is crazy, as it is extremely unlikely for the island to exist as one specifically imagined it. He suggests that the same argument can be held for any other thing. One can prove the existence of basically anything, even if it is clear that it does not exist. Although Gaunilo brings up a valid point, Anselm actually replies to his criticism and clarifies that his argument only works for concepts with necessary existence. He explains that only a being with necessary existence can be considered the greatest. An object, like the island Gaunilo mentioned, would not be considered to have necessary existence, as it can undergo changes and could not reach its perfection. But God, on the other hand, would be considered a being with necessary existence, and so He would be shown to truly exist. Anselm was able to refute Guanilo’s objection and discard arguments that did not show necessary existence. He was able to keep his argument in place by making it more specific, however, it is important to note that if he did not revise his argument, Gaunilo’s objection would have dismissed his proof right away.

One could also favor Anselm’s argument by saying that God is widely considered to be this being above everyone. It has become very common in society to think of the concept of God in that sense. I know that when I think about God, the same image comes to mind. Therefore, Anselm’s argument could prove God’s existence. However, there is a flaw to that, as it is important to think about the fact that not everyone understands God to be this ‘greatest conceivable being’ or at least thinks about God in the same way. A Dominican monk named Saint Thomas Aquinas actually brings this objection up. He says that because people can have different understandings, only those who understand the concept of God, in the same way, would be able to use the argument, while others could continue to deny it. Therefore, Aquinas concludes that Anselm’s reasoning could not truly prove God’s existence. Putting myself in Anselm’s shoes, he would probably respond to that objection by saying that if two people have different understandings or different imaginations of God, one of them would have to be wrong, as they must think about the same being. There can only be one correct understanding. Anselm could say that there can only be this one great conceivable being, and that is God. However, he is generalizing the public’s beliefs in God. He makes the assumption that everyone believes that God is the greatest conceivable being, and builds his argument off of that. Aquinas’ objection does in fact weaken his argument, as it is difficult to prove that everyone has the same understanding of God. This is especially true when there are people who believe in more than one God.

One last objection that lessens Anselm’s ontological argument was given by a German philosopher named Immanuel Kant. In his ‘Critique of Pure Reason’, he says that existence is not a predicate. He points out that Anselm makes existence look like perfection. In his ontological argument, Anselm says that something that exists both in the understanding and in reality is greater than something that only exists in the understanding. This shows that he believes that something that exists in both is better or more perfect than something only existing in the imagination. Kant rejects this idea because he says that existence cannot be considered property. He says that something must exist in order to hold properties, not the other way around. Even so, the existence of something does not automatically add a perfect quality, as Anselm expresses in his ontological argument. For example, human beings exist in the imagination and in reality. But that does not make us perfect. We all have our own problems to worry about, and sometimes we do not make the best decisions. Therefore, when it comes to the concept of God, there is no guarantee that God is this ‘greatest thinking thing’ because He cannot be given this ‘great-making property’. If He can’t be considered this greatest conceivable being, then we cannot prove His existence. This objection is strong as it attacks Anselm’s claim of God being at a higher level than everyone.

Overall, philosopher Saint Anselm makes a convincing argument on the existence of God, however, his argument is oversimplified, and therefore I could not trust his proof entirely. Many important objections have risen due to the fact that it was broad and could be interpreted differently. Gaunilo was able to object and say that his argument could be used to prove the existence of anything, even if it was obvious that it could not exist. Anselm was able to quickly clarify what he actually meant and maintain his argument, however, more criticism appeared. Thinkers like Aquinas and Kant began to carefully analyze his ontological argument and question to what extent his argument was valid. To summarize, it is difficult to prove that God truly exists based on Anselm’s argument. We can attempt to trust his argument that God is the greatest conceivable being and therefore He must exist, but we can’t know for sure. Therefore, we cannot deny the possibility that someone can be a nonbeliever in God. Anselm is a great thinker that does bring up unique and powerful points in his argument, but proving something is challenging. It is especially difficult when it is about a major topic like the existence of God, and when an indirect proof is used, because it will constantly be questioned and doubted.

References

    1. “Anselm: Ontological Argument for God’s Existence”. In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/
    2. “Ontological Argument (Criticisms)”. In Lumen Learning. Introduction to Philosophy. Chapter 6: Philosophy of Religion. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sanjacinto- philosophy/chapter/ontological-argument-criticisms/
    3. “Saint Anselm: The Ontological Argument”. In Introduction to Philosophy, 8th Edition, 40-42. Oxford University Press, 2018.

Does God Exist Essay

perfectExplain a problem with the idea that God is eternal and how his problem might be resolved.

The problem is, if God is eternal, meaning he exists outside of time, God would know what happens in our future. God knows what happens in our future just as he knows what has happened in the past. The argument arising from God’s Omniscience (Human Free Will) claims that if God knows what we will do before we do it then we are not free. In order for God to be omniscient, it would have to be true that he would know what we will do before we do it and the consequence that follows this claim is that we are not free. The situation would be the same reversed, if we were free and he didn’t know what we would do next, he would not be omniscient.

One solution to this problem is compatibilism, just because God knows what we will do and what is most likely that we will do, doesn’t mean that our free will is limited. It is a contingent truth instead. An example of this would be you being able to predict that your friend would help an old person cross the road that day, given the conditions that your

friend is in a happy and generous mood and that they are a kind person. You have this true belief about them, and it doesn’t take their free will away, and just because they did that action does not mean that they had to do that action. It is contingently true that Paris is the capital of France, but it didn’t have to be, it could have been another city.

A further solution to the argument is proposed by Stump and Kretzmann. They state that time is ET simultaneous, meaning that every moment is experienced temporally and simultaneously with god’s eternal present. Our events of the future are present to God. This doesn’t mean to say that God knows what happens in our future, he doesn’t know anything ‘now’ in a temporal sense but instead, his knowledge is eternal, atemporal. So, he cannot foresee future events, there is not a ‘before’ for his knowledge and his knowledge in time is ET simultaneous. God only knows what is happening when it is happening. Seeing as God’s knowledge is not ‘before’ anything, he cannot know what we will do before we do it and we can see that the original argument is flawed. His omniscience consists in the fact that god knows what we do, but he knows this ET simultaneously with us doing it. Our knowledge is T simultaneous and doesn’t stop our actions from being free, the same applies to God’s knowledge.

Is the Ontological argument convincing as proof of God’s existence?

The ontological argument is the only argument that uses a priori reasoning, Versions of the ontological argument aim to deduce God’s existence from the definition of God. Proponents of ontological arguments claim that ‘God exists is an analytic truth. The standard form of Anselm’s ontological argument is as follows, god is greater than what cannot be conceived, we can coherently conceive of such a being, it is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind and therefore, God must exist. A god that is great in every way and one that actually exists is better than one that does not. Since god is a being that we cannot imagine to be greater, this description would be true.

Descartes offers his own version as well, I have the idea of god, the idea is the idea of a supremely perfect being, a supremely perfect being does not lack perfection, existence is a perfection, and therefore god exists. His argument is similar to Anselm’s, except relies more heavily on the concept of perfection rather than greatness. Descartes argues that that would show that ‘god does exist’ is a self-contradiction.

Gaunilo of Marmoutiers argues that if Anselm’s argument is valid, then it’s possible for anything to be defined into existence. An example of this is the perfect island, an island greater than what is capable of being conceived. The perfect island is, by definition, an island greater than which cannot be conceived. The argument goes, that we can coherently conceive of such an island, it is greater to exist in reality than to exist in the mind, therefore this island must exist. The conclusion of this argument is obviously false. He says that if Anselm’s arguments are valid then we can define anything into existence, the perfect shoes, book, or tree.

Hume argues that ‘god does not exist is not a contradiction. The ontological argument reasons from the definition of God that God must exist. This would make ‘God exists’ an

analytic truth. Denying an analytic truth leads to a contradiction, e.g., ‘there is a triangle with four sides. Because contradictions cannot be coherently conceived, the idea does not make sense. If you tried to imagine a four-sided triangle you would see either a triangle or a square. So, Descartes and Anselm’s idea that ‘god does not exist is a contradiction is argued against by Hume who says that anything we can conceive of as existent, we can also conceive of as being non-existent.

Kant however argues that to say something exists doesn’t add anything to the concept of it, that existence is not a property of things in the same way as (e.g.) green is a property of grass. When it is said that “God exists”, it does not mean “there is a God and he has the property of existence”, for if it did then when it is said that “God does not exist”, it would mean, “there is a God, and he has the property of non-existence” and this does not make sense.

Kant’s response here is considered to be a powerful argument against it, Norman Malcolm developed an alternative version to avoid criticism. He accepted Anselm and Descartes’ version as wrong and argues instead that existence isn’t perfection but is necessary existence instead. Malcolm’s ontological argument is as follows,

‘Either God exists or does not exist. God cannot come into existence or go out of existence. If God exists, God cannot cease to exist. Therefore, if God exists, God’s existence is necessary. Therefore, if God does not exist, God’s existence is impossible. Therefore, God’s existence is either necessary or impossible. God’s existence is impossible only if the concept of God is self-contradictory. The concept of God is not self-contradictory. Therefore, God’s existence is not impossible. Therefore, God exists necessarily.’ It can be argued that the meaning of ‘necessary’ changes between the premise about god’s existence being necessary and the conclusion, rendering his argument invalid. Malcolm is talking about necessary existence in the sense that it is a necessary truth that god exists, which is obviously not the same thing. It is okay to accept that if god exists, he has the property of necessary existence, but it is not true that god exists necessarily

I think that overall, this demonstrates the ontological argument to not be convincing as it is dismissed multiple times throughout many different approaches to the argument, many times.

Why I Believe in God: Essay

Talking about whether I believe in God or not, yes I do believe in God and it is mentioned in my religion. I don’t believe that there is only a superpower, I believe that there is God and there is a superpower as well.

Evolutionary creationists believe that God created humans in his image and that God created humans using a natural process that scientists described as evolution. Many people assume that evolution is incompatible with the belief that humans are created in the image of God. Doesn’t image-wearing require the miraculous creation of humans rather than sharing biological history with other creatures? One view is that the image of God refers to uniquely human cognitive abilities. When people talk of the things that make a human, they often referred to the abilities like reason and rationality, mathematics and language, laughter and emotions, caring and empathy, as well as cultural products like music and arts.

If I am talking about whether God exists, then in my opinion, yes. As a child, my father and my grandmother used to tell me that there is God, and that’s why we always do pooja in the morning and visit temples. My grandmother told me about the various books like Mahabharata and Ramayana which made me believe in God. The stories that my grandparents told me about the existence of God, yes I do believe in them because those stories were real in my mind when I was a child. Because when I was a child, I used to think in a different way, and whatever an elder person was telling me, I used to believe in it, and I am still believing in it.

If God does not exist, life is ultimately meaning less. If your life is doomed to end in death, then ultimately it does not matter how you live. In the end, it makes no ultimate difference whether you existed or not. Without God, we live without hope. If God does not exist, then we must ultimately live without hope there is no God, then there is ultimately no hope for deliverance from the shortcomings of a finite existence. For every mistake for every shortcoming the human blames God or either asks for help from God. If there was no God, why would they ask for help? Because all of them believe that there is God, there is someone, there is a superpower that created this universe that makes all these things happen.

Grappling With God’s Existence In The Context Of The Holocaust

For nearly as long as humans have walked the earth and been conscious of the unique attributes separating us from the animal kingdom, we have reckoned with the question of why we exist. There is no objective purpose for human existence, and this uncertainty creates an uncomfortable void in the agency we seek to apply to our lives. The pursuit of existential meaning is an inherently human trait prompted by the curiosity of our consciousness and has no definitive answer. Throughout the vast majority of human history, the existence of some type of godly creator provided the most compelling rationale for making sense of the world. Such beliefs are manifested in religions that seek to find meaning and purpose in our lives, giving the most lost and lonely souls a constant companion in their creator. The etymology of religion is derived in the respective Latin roots “re-lig-io” which together suggest a way of binding back to that which made us. Therefore, we can understand religion as a way to connect the concepts of our known reality –“profanus”– to the sacred unknown –“sacer”– which we can only imagine. Religion structures that imagination through collective storytelling and the creation of a culture of belief which ultimately creates order and a basis for hope that our existence is not meaningless. Whether one embraces this imposition of a narrative of divine reality on society, or like philosophers Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud criticize its seductive illusion of a comfortable certainty, it is undoubtedly true that religion has shaped human society and greatly defined modern civilization.

Many regional and cultural enclaves offer distinct interpretations of God and manifestations of religion, but the majority of the Earth’s population follows three historically intertwined faiths; Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Today these predominant religions are manifested in definitively different cultures but their theologies are fundamentally related in a shared origin. All three religions are monotheistic and stem from one spiritual source: the worship of the God of the original prophet Abraham of the ancient Israelites. The smallest of the three, Judaism, is the direct product of the Abrahamic beliefs and the religion of his descendants and is most closely linked to its original theology. Christianity and Islam were spread globally through adoption by the Roman and Islamic empires respectively, consequentially altering the interpretations of original Abrahamism through their different contexts. Despite these different evolutions, the traditional teachings of God’s natural all-knowing omniscience, all-powerful omnipotence, and all-good omnibenevolence remained core to all three faiths. The contrast between this common, traditional characterization of God and the realities of injustice and suffering in the world prompts one of the most disputed debates in history known as “theodicy.” Theodicy investigates and attempts to reconcile the assumption of the goodness and power of God with the prevalent existence of evil in the world, which challenges the traditional monotheistic views of God.

Each Abrahamic religion embodies a distinctly challenging application for theodicy, but Judaism offers perhaps the most difficult and contentious context for exploration of the discipline because of the uniquely troubled history of the Jewish people. Every Jew is familiar with the countless tests to the survival of the faith, as questions and justifications regarding our ability to preserve faith in God’s goodness have become ingrained in our theology and characteristic of the narrative of Judaism. Our religious texts reflect the historical prevalence of this adversity, and every year at Passover the Haggadah teaches us to accept that “in every generation, enemies rise up seeking to destroy us,” however, “God delivers us from their hands.” This role of God as a protector redeeming the Jewish people because of our continued faith is crucial to justifications for past evils within Jewish theology. This view remained firmly accepted for over two millennia throughout countless tests such as our Egyptian enslavement, subjection to attacks during the Crusades, and repeated expulsions from prejudiced societies. In fact, antisemitism is as old as Christianity, as the refusal of the Jewish people to accept the narrative of Christ as a prophet prompted systematic demonization and an association between Jews and the antichrist propagated by the Christian narrative of Jews as “christ-killers.” In the millennia between Jesus’s crucifixion and the more recent history of Jewish settlement in Europe, these antisemitic narratives were further enhanced causing deep fissures in Jewish-Christian relationships which greatly transformed perceptions of Jews among European Christians. One of the outcomes of this religious and cultural division was the recasting of Judaism from a religion to an ethnic group by Christian nationalists, making it easier to market the threat of Jewish influence as a kind of malevolent Middle-Eastern taint on European society. Such deeply indoctrinated antisemitic sentiments offer important context for grappling with the greatest challenge ever to face traditional Jewish theology.

In the greatest genocide in modern history, the German Nazi regime systematically murdered six million European Jews because their “racial inferiority” threatened the purity of Arian Germany. The evil of the Holocaust was incomprehensible, as entire populations of Jewish men, women, and children were mercilessly subjugated to mass slaughter by being burned alive, gassed, shot, and worked to death by their fellow humans. The murder of not only an astounding numberof Jews but also a disproportionate number of the most devout rabbis and scholars offers the most absolute challenge to the possibility of the existence of a traditional Jewish God. The millennia-old doctrine of the Jews as the chosen people protected by a God who intervenes to balance injustice by punishing evil and rewarding good was suddenly inconceivable. This irreconcilable clash between the God of Jewish traditions and the unfathomable evils done to its most faithful believers creates a seemingly unanswerable paradox in Jewish theodicy. The supposedly eternal covenant between God and the Judaic people which is the basis for the entirety of the faith became inconceivable following the Holocaust. How could it be possible that the traditional all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good God of Judaism could allow such an event to occur? Pragmatically such a God is impossible, however, many Jews have become even more resolute in their faith after the Holocaust. To be able to offer a genuine response to this question, which has become aligned with Theodicy as an intellectual discipline, it is essential to understand the perspectives of both the stakeholders involved and theologians.

The most significant perspectives for understanding the implications of the Holocaust must come from those who experienced its evil first hand. Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel’s primary account of the atrocities experienced in the extermination camps in his memoir Night offers the most validated commentary because his faith was directly tested. Upon witnessing the horrors committed on his supposedly chosen people, Wiesel is prompted to question why God “chose us among all nations to be tortured day and night.” This is an unanswerable question in the context of a concentration camp because it depends on blind faith in God’s benevolence as a protector of the Jewish people, which becomes impossible after the traumas Wiesel is subjected to. The dominance of Nazi human evil over the precise population that Jewish theology claims God protects prompts Wiesel to realize that “man is stronger, greater than God”, rendering the doctrine that God is all-powerful unrealistic and therefore unbelievable. The realization that he cannot be protected by God both empowers and terrifies Wiesel, as “[he] felt very strong” because his “eyes had been opened and [he] was alone in a world without God.” This acceptance of the impossibility of the God of traditional Judaism’s existence is not youthful ignorance, and is in fact shared by a rabbi from Poland Wiesel meets who declares that “God is no longer with us” and justifies his verdict because he repeatedly witnesses the lack of God’s mercy when it is most needed. These understandings of the inconceivability of an omnibenevolent God due to the first-hand witness of unchecked evil hold more weight than the dissertations of any theological scholar who claims to understand the problem of evil. Nobody who has not experienced the Holocaust can discredit the beliefs of the dying Jew whose experiences have caused him to abandon his protector and “have more faith in Hitler than anyone else” because “he alone has kept his promises, all his promises, to the Jewish people.” To most humans the possibility of genocide is unimaginable, but to those who survived it, it is rather the existence of an omnipotent God that is impossible, a position which can never be justifiably discredited. If God failed to answer Wiesel’s father’s dying summons of his Lord, symbolized by the name “Eliezer,” then how can any Jew expect his mercy?

The distinguished theologian Richard Rubenstein offers a second crucial work for understanding Holocaust theodicy, which is further-reaching if less experiential than Wiesel’s. In After Auschwitz, Rubenstein deeply considers theological reactions to the Holocaust by interviewing a wide array of religious leaders, theologists, and philosophers as a basis for his own perspective, thereby offering exposure to many different schools of thought. Much of Rubenstein’s argument depends on the important concept of “Heilsgeschichte,” which is a German term implying that history is sacred because an omnipotent God has been active in influencing human affairs. In the context of Heilsgeschichte, Rubenstein asserts the baseline for his argument about a traditional God: that “Judaism and Christianity differ in their interpretation of history, but not in their basic affirmation that God’s relation to the world is primarily historical.” By clearly defining the traditional God which defines Jewish theology as omnipotent and embodying Heilsgeschichte, Rubenstein sets the parameters for his verdict on the possible existence of such a God and critique of Holocaust theology.

One perspective Rubenstein seeks for insight into how to properly interpret the Holocaust is that of prominent religious leaders from both sides of the debate, a German minister and Jewish rabbi. He first consults Dean Grüber, an evangelical Christian minister who had survived the Holocaust after being imprisoned for criticizing the persecution of Jews. When Rubenstein traveled to West Germany in 1961 to meet with Grüber, the minister was working as an activist against continued antisemitism in Germany. Grüber viewed the Holocaust as a punitive measure by God for a transgression committed by the Jewish people, identifying “problematic” traits of European Jews such as their involvement in illegal business and brothels. While Grüber’s intentions were ambivalent, and he simply “want[ed] Christians to become better Christians and Jews to become better Jews” as Rubenstein identifies, his critiques of Jewish behavior troublingly suggest that Jews must essentially have behaved perfectly to have avoided the Holocaust. It is “evident in [Grüber’s] mind Jewish behavior and antisemitism were objectively related,” an assertion that ignores the antisemitism indoctrinated into Nazism and Christian culture to a broader degree. Despite Grüber’s work to protect the Jewish people, his perspective that God intended the Holocaust to occur but that Nazis simply overstepped its intentions in an exercise of free will undermines the possible presence of a traditional God as defined by Heilsgeschichte.

In Rubenstein’s later discussion with Rabbi Joseph Schneersohn, similar discrepancies between his belief in a traditional God and theology specific to the Holocaust are apparent. Like Grüber, Schneersohn contends that the Holocaust was punitive in nature, as he believes “Hitler is but God’s instrument for chastising the Jews, who had abandoned the ways of Torah; Nazism is divine punishment visited upon the Jews” for choosing assimilation. Shneersohn’s theory is typical of a devout biblical scholar intent on following God’s commandments, but fails to account for the fact that other scholars such as himself who promoted following the Torah were murdered at an even higher rate than Jews who weren’t absolute in their faith. His justification of God’s punishment as caused by Jews assimilating and moving away from strict adherence to the Torah also puts the blame on the victims rather than on the murderers. The omnipotent mercy and goodness combined with the active role of the traditional God defined by Rubenstein would never justify such a punishment, and Schneersohn’s justification for the atrocities problematically absolves Hitler’s Nazis of the guilt, instead placing it on the victims themselves.

The theologian and reform Rabbi Ignaz Maybaum offers a different perspective on the implications of a traditional God who actively intervenes in history. Maybaum suggests that divine intervention is manifested in acts of destruction as a form of terrible sacrifice necessary for an act of salvation to follow. Maybaum “contended that the nations of the world can only hear and respond to God’s call when that call is in the language of death and destruction,” and dubbed such sacrificial interventions “churbans.” He believes that churbans signify a transition between eras in Judaism, such as the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem and crucifixion of Jesus, suggesting that the Holocaust represents the ultimate churban. His argument becomes more contentious when he suggests the Holocaust was “an ultimately beneficial act,” because it enabled “medieval” European Jewish societies to modernize and become freer . I find this sacrificial interpretation both sadistic and wildly inaccurate, as the “freedom” he suggested Jews enjoying in post-Holocaust “salvation” was born in blood and has been repeatedly attacked at its symbolic home in the Jewish state of Israel, and half a century later antisemitism is still readily present globally. Rubenstein contends that Maybaum’s belief further proves the inability to simultaneously advocate for a traditional biblical