A logical Atheistic argument is used to show that the concept of God is logically impossible because it violates a principle of logic. For example, the omnipotence paradox, allegedly shows that the traditional concept of an omnipotent God is logically impossible. The logical Atheistic argument for God is distinct from the Atheistic evidential argument. For, the logical argument is deductive and the evidential argument is inductive. And, the logical argument uses A priori propositions and the evidential argument uses A posteriori propositions. Moreover A priori propositions belong to the realm of relation of ideas. And A posteriori propositions pertains to the realm of matters of facts. E.t.C Consider the following Atheistic logical argument. 1. Gods attributes are essential to his being. 2. Thus, if God exists, then he possess the attributes of omniscience and omnibenevolence. 3. If God possesses the attributes of omniscience and omnibenevolence, then the four kinds of evil would not exist. (1. Moral evil, 2. Natural evil, 3. Physical evil, And, 4. Metaphysical evil) 4. But, the four kinds of evil exist. 5. Hence, God does not possesses the attributes of omniscience and omnibenevolence. 6. Therefore, necessarily, God does not exist. The evidential Atheistic argument is based on experience. Moreover it entails an A posteriori proposition. The truth of an A posteriori proposition is contingent on experience because it is about an alleged fact about the world, namely the existence of evil in a world created, allegedly, by a good and powerful God. Consider the following atheistic evidential argument; It is as follows; 1. Pain and suffering exists in the world. (Physical evil is a fact of the world.) 2. If an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God exists, then he would not allow pain and suffering in the world. 3. Therefore, it is likely that such a God does not exist. Now before i present my response it is important to note the following; My response and objection, to my arguments above, will be brief, but sufficient. Moreover my response will not address the subject matter completely because the problem of evil is a vast subject. My response and objection is as follows;( i am going to kill two brids with one stone. In other words, i am going to provide one response for both arguments.) 1. There are penal conseuqences for doing moral evil. ( The consequences are as follows; physical evil, metaphysical evil, and natural evil) 2. If an omnibenvolent and omnipotent God exists, then there would be penal consequences for doing moral evil. (For it would be immoral for a moral God, with the power to punish, to allow us to do moral evil without consequences). 3. Therefore, necessarily, an omniscient and omnibenevolent and God exists. Next, consider the following evidential argument/or the antithesis of the evidential atheisitic argument that i presented above. 1. There are good things in the world. (The good things in the world are the things in the world that benefit us and affect us positiviely) 2. If an omnibenevolent God did not exist, then good things would not exists in the world. 3. Therefore, it is likely that such a God exists. The argument above the second argument shows us that the existence of the three kinds of evil does not contradict our concept/or definition of God. And the second argument is an obstacle to the ATHEISTIC arguments. For they also have to provide us with a rational account that explains why good exists exists as well. And consequently it is not logically impossible for God to exist. For a good God can exist whilst evil exists as well. Therefore the Atheistic and the atheistic evidential argument does not NECESSARILY negate the existence of God. The fact is this; What if, the three kinds of evil (namely; natural evil, physical evil, and metaphysical evil) constitute the penal consequences against moral evil? Well, if it does, then would expect that, if a God of justice exists, then he would create a world with free fill and with penal consequences. And; What if the three kinds of evil serve a judiciary purpose? But; It is important to note this; I do not believe that God is always resposible for the three kinds of evil. And so, like i have already stated, my response is not exhaustive, in terms of covering this broad issue that pertains to the problem of evil. But. like is stated, it is sufficient, relative to showing that the existence of evil is not incompatible with our concept/defintion/existence of God. So there are no logical or evidential obstacles that prevent God from existing. What do you think? Let us debate/discuss the problem of evil/Let us do the philosophy of religion.
Posted on: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:38:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015