Commentary of Evil in Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part X

685 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: David Hume the argument from evil

In Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part X, Philo have questioned how it is possible to reconcile God's infinite benevolence, wisdom, and power with the presence of evil in the world. “His power we allow is infinite: whatever he wills is executed: but neither man nor any other animal is happy: therefore he does not will their happiness. His wisdom is infinite: he is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end: but the course of Nature tends not to human or animal felicity: therefore it is not established for that purpose.” (Hume, 87) Given the presence of evil, we must either conclude that God wishes to prevent needless suffering, but cannot, in which case God is not all-powerful, or we may admit that he does not wish to prevent evil in which case we may conclude that God is not infinitely benevolent. Or, alternatively, we can conclude that he both wishes and can prevent evil, but that he is not wise enough to know how to arrange the world so that there is no evil, in which case he is not infinitely wise. Evaluation Philo’s argument of the incompatibility of God’s existence with the existence of evil is valid, because of the following: Philo’s argument has the premises which are God is infinitely wise, powerful and benevolent is true. The existence of evil shows God must lack either infinite benevolence or powerful or wisdom. If we assume these premises are true, then the conclusion God does not exist is true. A valid argument is one on which, if we assume the premises are all true, the conclusion must be true. Therefore it is a valid argument. It is an unsound argument, because the premises of this argument are not true in fact: the existence of evil cannot show that God must lack either infinite benevole... ... middle of paper ... ...ng on randomly, evil things happen to people who don't deserve it. Is this state runs counter to the idea that God is just. Or God could not control how much evil is necessary to bring to whom. These replies are unsuccessful, because Van Inwagen's response is to say that God entails "being the playthings of chance." living in a world with no justice is a consequence of our separation with God; it's one more evil thing about our world. God's infinite perfection allows him to control how much evil is necessary to bring to whom, but he is executing his plan and waiting people to recognize how horrible it is to be apart from God. In my opinion about the replies of Van Inwangen’s objection, if God is infinitely perfect, then we are limited to comprehend God, we can allow that God's infinite perfection and the evil of his great plan can be reconciled in some unknown way.

Show More
Related

  • Critical Analysis of Evil as Evidence for Christianity by Gregory E. Ganssle

    712 Words  | 2 Pages

    An enjoyable yet short and to the point argument of Gods existence the author captures the attention of the reader and does a great job of defending his claim that evil points to the existence of God. Through strong logical argumentation, presented evidence and showing how evil supporting atheism is a weak defense Ganssle does not appear to show inconsistency in his work.

    Read More

  • Analysis of Evil in Peter Van Inwagen´sThe Argument from Evil

    1218 Words  | 3 Pages

    Inwagen sets the basic format for the problem of evil as thus: God has “non-negotiable” properties of omnipotence and moral perfection, there is evil in this world, if an omnipotent and morally perfect being created this world there shouldn’t be evil in it, therefore, there is no God. (Reason and Responsibility, 108) Omnipotence meaning able to bring about anything that is not a contradiction and moral perfection meaning never – not even once- doing something that is morally unacceptable. (Reason and Responsibility, 108) Inwagen’s objective in the essay, The Argument from Evil, is to present a “defense” against the problem of evil. Inwagen’s defense is not trying to prove he knows the reason why evil exists; rather, only to show that there may be “a very real possibility” that God has a morally acceptable reason for allowing evil to exist. (Reason and Responsibility, 109) Inwagen’s reasoning behind this is as follows; from the premises of the problem of evil the conclusion, God does not exist, does not necessary follow because He may have a morally acceptable reason for allowing evil to exist. Inwagen makes a case for the above reasoning by using an analogy that shows human do not always act on their wants, that they are able to bring about, because they have reasons not to and this can be extrapolated to God. (Reason and Responsibility, 109) The next question then is: what this reason, or reasons, to ...

    Read More

  • Transworld Depravity Analysis

    1462 Words  | 3 Pages

    The problem of evil, as articulated by J.L. Mackie, concerns the consistency of the following claims typically accepted by theists: God is omniscient; God is omnipotent; God is omnibenevolent; evil exists. If God is omniscient, then he should know about all evil that exists. If God is omnipotent, then it should be within his power to prevent all evil from occurring. Finally, if God is omnibenevolent, then it should be the case that he would not permit the evil that he is capable of preventing. The fact that evil does exist seems to indicate an inconsistency in the set of claims. In other words, the existence of evil seems to threaten the status of at least one of the divine attributes. This paper will explicate Alvin Plantinga's response to the problem of evil, in which he invokes the concept of transworld depravity. He argues that it is possible that all agents suffer this condition, and so, if this were the case, then God could not actualize any possible world in which free

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Philo, Demea And Cleanthes

    1331 Words  | 3 Pages

    The argument from design discussion occurs in parts two through five of the Dialogues, and begins with Demea professing that what needs to be questioned is God’s nature, not his existence, since all three of the members already agree that God exists. He says that humans are weak and will never be able to understand God’s nature, stating “finite, weak, and blind creatures, we ought to humble ourselves in his august presence, and, conscious of our frailties, adore in silence his infinite perfections, which eye has not seen, ear has not heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man to perceive” (Hume 607). By this, Demea means that understanding God’s nature is beyond the capacity of human understanding, and humans will never have a clear answer regarding it. Philo agrees with Demea on this idea, but also says that he does not assume that God is like humans in any way at all. To defend his argument, he says “Wisdom, thought, design, knowledge— these we justly ascribe to him, because these words are h...

    Read More

  • Evil and Omnipotence

    947 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...mpossibility for an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good God to exist in a universe where evil exists. The qualities in question are categorical, omnipotence, omniscience and being perfectly good, and the only way to account for the existence of evil is to limit in some way one of the categorical characteristics. What this does is change the quality of omnipotence to the lesser quality of extremely powerful. And in admitting any restrictions to any of the classical attributes of God is to admit that the logical impossibility is in fact valid. What a person needs to do is examine the problem objectively first, and only after reaching their objective conclusion can they then apply it to their religious beliefs.

    Read More

  • God's Omnipotence

    1649 Words  | 4 Pages

    The theological problem of evil is a problem that many philosophers have tried to solve. The problem is stated as, "if one believes that god is omnipotent and wholly good, why does evil still exist?" In this writing I will discuss the solutions/propositions of John L. Mackie in his work, "Evil and Omnipotence." I will do this in order to illustrate the concept of free will for understanding or resolving the problem, and to reveal how and why Mackie arrives at his conclusions.

    Read More

  • Deductive Problem Of Evil Essay

    1523 Words  | 4 Pages

    One of the major philosophical debates concerning God's existence involves the problem of evil.  The problem has two basic formulations, one is deductive, the other inductive.  The deductive form of the problem asks the following:  Is the existence of evil logically compatible with a necessarily benevolent and necessarily omnipotent being?  One of the philosophers who discusses the problem is Richard Gale.  I will begin this essay by outlining the deductive problem of evil according to Gale.  I will then try to refute the deductive argument and prove that the existence of evil is indeed logically compatible with a benevolent and omnipotent being.  A conclusion will then follow.

    Read More

  • William Rowe Atheism Analysis

    631 Words  | 2 Pages

    William Rowe presents an evidential argument that supports the idea that God, an omniscient and supreme being, cannot exist because gratuitous evil, meaningless evil that does not correlate to a greater good, exists. Rowe organizes his argument into two premises which support that God does not exist. The first premise acknowledges that gratuitous evils exists in abundance in the world, creating a common experience, or natural theology. Then, Rowe argues, in his second premise, the incompatibility of gratuitous evil and God. Once the two premises have been established and proven true, Rowe concludes that God does not exist.

    Read More

  • Summary Of Evil And Omnipotence By J. L. Mackie

    480 Words  | 1 Pages

    Mackie goes to elaborate on the subject with the world we know harboring evil. As God made good, evil is simultaneously created. If God is an all knowing being that is wholly good, he should want to stop the aforementioned evil that plagues mankind, and yet he doesn’t. Why is that? Maybe the word ‘omnipotent’ is too strong of a word to associate with the divine being that created us.

    Read More

  • Theodicy: The Problem Of Evil

    573 Words  | 2 Pages

    Since the commencement of time, people have been questioning and debating the problem of evil and why God allows for evil to exist. If evil is the spiritual balance of good, then without the existence of evil, good would not be able exist. This belief may be explained by the contrast theodicy that God may have reasons for evil to exist in society. An example of a contrast theodicy would be that bad things happen to good people and is the basis of the relationship of evil to God’s intent for the good of mankind. People also question why God does not eliminate the suffering of mankind from the world. Again, we can turn to a theodicy to provide an explanation to this question. The answer may found in the big-plan theodicy, which explains that suffering may be part of God’s big plan and needs to happen for good of mankind.

    Read More

  • Simon Blackburn's Argument Analysis

    1215 Words  | 3 Pages

    There are those who believe wholeheartedly in an all-powerful, benevolent, creator God, and those that believe putting one’s faith in such a thing is ludicrous. Simon Blackburn questions the existence of such a God with “the problem of evil.” Essentially, it means since there is evil, pain and strife in the world it would be illogical to believe in an infallible, benevolent God. Why would God create a world with so much evil? If this God exists, then the world would be perfect. The world is not perfect. Therefore, there can be no such God. Blackburn confronts many possible criticisms to his argument. He attacks the idea of the world being a test for who goes to heaven or hell, our misunderstanding of God’s morality as human morality and the free-will argument. I believe he successfully debunks these criticisms, but he does not address the issue of dichotomy. Everything in the world is relative, and things are defined by their opposites.

    Read More

  • Dialogues Conceringing Natural Religion

    691 Words  | 2 Pages

    Philo first begins his argument by stating that if God is truly dominant than he can control everything. Afterwards he continues on to state that if God was willing to avert evil but not able to than he was inept. If he is able to avert it but not willing to, he is malicious. With that being said, Philo concluded that if God truly believed in the well being of man-kind, than there would be no evil in this world.

    Read More

  • Epicurus Paradox

    1070 Words  | 3 Pages

    “If God is willing to prevent Evil, but not able. Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

    Read More

  • Problem Of Evil Argument Essay

    807 Words  | 2 Pages

    In this paper, I will argue that it is not necessary that one can accept the Problem of Evil (PoE) as a proof against the existence of a theistic God. In order to support this claim, I will present the PoE. Then, I will identify and explain the most common ways in which the premises are used to support the argument. Finally, I will critique the argument by challenging premises 2 and 5.

    Read More

  • The Nature Of Human Nature: Good And Evil

    709 Words  | 2 Pages

    God is good and evil is rampant; both of these are true. Theodicy questions how both statements are true; there couldn’t be a just God and evil in the same world. My logic is that since we know what good and evil is, that proves the existence of God. God created an instinctive sense of right and wrong in our minds from our birth that goes deep into our nature as humans. C.S. Lewis calls this the “Law of Human Nature” since, like gravity, “the subject is governed by the law.” So I believe that God exists, and evil is a result of our free will which is given to us by God.

    Read More

More about Commentary of Evil in Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part X

Open Document