The atheist's argument from evil to the conclusion that God does not exist can be outlined as follows:
1) If God exists, then there exists a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good.
2) If there existed a being who were omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good, then there would be no evil.
3) But there is evil.
C) Therefore, God does not exist.
The first premise follows directly from the theist's definition of God. "Omniscient" is taken to mean "one who knows all true propositions," "omnipotent" is understood as "able to do anything logically possible," and "perfectly good" is defined as "one who does no morally bad action." Thus, in the second premise of the argument from evil, the atheist asserts that the existence of God …show more content…
Thus, the devil and his minion of fallen angels are held accountable for the existence of natural evils not brought about by human actions. According to theists who hold this point of view, these evil-doing creatures have abused their duty to care for the natural world, but God is not obligated to interfere to prevent the suffering that stems from natural evil because it was caused by free willed beings whose decisions are logically beyond God's power to control. However, while the thesis that fallen angels are responsible for natural evil is not clearly false, neither is it clearly true. There is no positive evidence that such beings exist and an argument based on their existence cannot be highly cogent. If the possibility that natural evils stem from the free choice of an agent other than man is disregarded on these grounds, then neither man nor a free willed agent other than man can be held accountable for natural evil. Therefore, the theist must attribute natural evil to the direct action of …show more content…
However, moral evil is of sufficient frequency and severity to provide for this end without the addition of natural evil. Often the most exalted characters arise from the most severe evils. Nonetheless, the evils resulting from a severe moral evil, such as a war, are no less severe than those resulting from a natural evil, such as a hurricane. A soldier who saves a comrade during war is no less brave than a man who risks his life to save a child during a hurricane. Furthermore, moral evils are not held in check by any natural laws and therefore are potentially more widespread than natural evils. With respect to every type of moral virtue, the danger, anguish, and pain resulting from the free action of men is enough to generate evil on a large enough scale to produce morally excellent characters on a level with those produced by natural evils. Therefore, natural evil is extraneous evil that is over and above the amount of evil necessary to produce morally excellent
1) If God exists, then there exists a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good.
2) If there existed a being who were omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good, then there would be no evil.
3) But there is evil.
C) Therefore, God does not exist.
The first premise follows directly from the theist's definition of God. "Omniscient" is taken to mean "one who knows all true propositions," "omnipotent" is understood as "able to do anything logically possible," and "perfectly good" is defined as "one who does no morally bad action." Thus, in the second premise of the argument from evil, the atheist asserts that the existence of God …show more content…
Thus, the devil and his minion of fallen angels are held accountable for the existence of natural evils not brought about by human actions. According to theists who hold this point of view, these evil-doing creatures have abused their duty to care for the natural world, but God is not obligated to interfere to prevent the suffering that stems from natural evil because it was caused by free willed beings whose decisions are logically beyond God's power to control. However, while the thesis that fallen angels are responsible for natural evil is not clearly false, neither is it clearly true. There is no positive evidence that such beings exist and an argument based on their existence cannot be highly cogent. If the possibility that natural evils stem from the free choice of an agent other than man is disregarded on these grounds, then neither man nor a free willed agent other than man can be held accountable for natural evil. Therefore, the theist must attribute natural evil to the direct action of …show more content…
However, moral evil is of sufficient frequency and severity to provide for this end without the addition of natural evil. Often the most exalted characters arise from the most severe evils. Nonetheless, the evils resulting from a severe moral evil, such as a war, are no less severe than those resulting from a natural evil, such as a hurricane. A soldier who saves a comrade during war is no less brave than a man who risks his life to save a child during a hurricane. Furthermore, moral evils are not held in check by any natural laws and therefore are potentially more widespread than natural evils. With respect to every type of moral virtue, the danger, anguish, and pain resulting from the free action of men is enough to generate evil on a large enough scale to produce morally excellent characters on a level with those produced by natural evils. Therefore, natural evil is extraneous evil that is over and above the amount of evil necessary to produce morally excellent