Leibniz Evil

In Proslogion, Anselm argues God’s existence using what has come to be known as the ontological argument. Using the ontological argument, Anselm disproves “the fools” belief that there is no God. However, Anselm does not give enough backing to his arguments. This is particularly true in the fourth point, that it is conceivable that God exists in reality. Although I agree with Anselm, he gives no evidence to support why it is conceivable that God truly exists in reality. Anselm immediately goes from saying how it means more if something exists in reality and understanding than just in the understanding to immediately saying that the fool can conceive that God exists in reality. The

J. L. Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence” criticizes the argument that God exists by showing that religious beliefs are positively irrational and that parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another. The problem of evil is one of the oldest problems in philosophy. The problem of evil is a logical problem for only the people who believe that there is a God who is both (1) omnipotent and (2) wholly good; yet (3) evil exists in the world. If God is wholly good and omnipotent, then how can there be a presence of evil in the world. Given the presence of evil, we must either conclude that God does not have the power to prevent the suffering that evil causes in which case God is not omnipotent or that God does not wish

God has been believed to be that being which is all good, all knowing, and all powerful. St. Thomas Aquinas in, The Five Ways—Question II, Third Article, responds to two specific objections which aim to prove God’s nonexistence. The first objection rests upon the notion that if one of two contradictions are infinite, the other cannot possibly exist. That is to say, if God does exist, there would be no evil in the world because God is believed to be infinitely good. If he were all good, all knowing, and all powerful, he would be more than capable of creating and maintaining a world in which no evil exists.

For atheists, apologetics, and non-believers, a big topic of contention is the existence of evil in a world with God. This is known as the problem with evil. How does a God that is all knowing, all powerful, and perfectly good allow such atrocities to occur under his watch? It is this question that so many people have discussed. The argument centers on God being omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good (Mackie, 1955 p. 200). Omnipotent is to be all powerful. Omniscient is to be all knowing and to be perfectly good means that God would prevent a morally bad event from ever happening (Swinburne, 1998 p. 13). In the problem of evil, God’s powers are taken at face value, and applied to God’s inaction to evil on earth. People who argue against the topic of evil typically make generalizations on the attributes that God

Widespread controversy surrounds the Problem of Evil and the philosophical premises constructed. Devine entities are perceivably omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, although the extent to which an omni-God of such can coexist with suffering is an extensively debatable topic. The objective of this essay’s argument is to posit a range of deliberation regarding the integrity of various theoretical claims, where if God truly existed, would this subjectively “all-good” entity allow evil to exist? 2. Problem of Evil

In Chapter 2 of Anselm's Proslogian, Anselm offers what was later to be characterized as his Ontological Argument, which is an argument for God's existence he felt was so strong that even a fool as is said in Psalms 14:1- "who has said in his heart, 'There is no God'". Anselm's argument is as follows :

Anselm’s Ontological argument sets out to not only prove God’s existence, but to show that God’s existence is self-evident. Similar to other ontological arguments, it uses a priori knowledge to argue its validity, meaning that the propositions made are derived from internal reasoning instead of sense experience.

In the book, The Proslogion, written by Saint Anselm, we find the Ontological Argument. This argument made by Saint Anselm gives us proofs that he believes helps prove the existence of God. Anselm gives many reasons as to why the simple understanding of God can help prove that God himself exists, as well as mentioning how the idea of God cannot be thought not to exist. Though this argument has been looked at by people such as Guanilo, a monk, whose response to Anselm 's proofs was trying to say that there were flaws, there are more reasons as to why Anselm 's proofs work well with his argument. From the understanding of God existing, and the idea behind greatness Anselm 's argument is one that is strong and can work as a proof when trying

When we are discussing the problem of evil, we are specifically discussing a God that is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. A God that is perfectly good would not allow suffering to exist, and any minute amount of suffering that exists disproves God’s existence. Unless, the suffering is justified with an adequate reason. However, even then there seems to be large amounts of evil in the world that seems unnecessary for any good reason. By evil and suffering I mean death, pain, and disease. I will be using these terms interchangeably. In the problem of evil, many arguments are placed in order to find a justification for the evil that exists. However,

The ontological argument argues that if you understand what it means to talk about God, you will see His existence is necessarily true. Anselm defined God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived', hence God must exist. Anselm also believed that even

LEIBNIZ’S CONCEPTION OF THE PROBLEM OF EVIL BY OKOJIE E. PETER epo4escriva@yahoo.com MAY 2013 INTRODUCTION For many centuries, philosophers have been discussing evil, how it exists in the world, and how this relates to God. The discussion on evil and its relations to us is not an easy one though. It is commonly called the problem of evil. The problem of evil in contemporary philosophy is generally regarded as an argument for atheism. The atheist contends that God and evil are incompatible, and given that evil clearly exists, God cannot exist. The problem is generally used to disprove God’s existence by showing an inconsistency between an all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing God; and the existence of evil. Philosophers over the centuries

Taking Descartes for example, he first believe the only thing we can believe is a clear and distinct perception, which come up with the existence of God. Then, Descartes use this to feat the problem of Evil. He believe that since God is perfect, he will not allow us be deceived. Therefore, the existence of evil must be false. However, I do not think it is a reasonable response to the problem of Evil, because when someone argue that demon can deceive people about distinct perception, Descartes said that God will not allow a error of distinct perception, which cause a Cartesian Circle in this argument. This is because based on his word, people can have clear and distinct perception because of existence of God which proved by people can distinctly percept. Thus, it is not a reasonable

The third argument for God’s existence is the ontological argument. This argument is unlike the cosmological and teleological arguments in that it does not argue from evidence in the natural world. Thus, it is not a “cause and effect” argument.

Anselm's ontological argument is a philosophical argument which aims to prove God's existence. The ontological argument is an argument for God’s existence based on reason alone. According to this argument, there is no need to go out looking for physical evidence of God’s existence; we can work out that he exists simply by thinking about it logically. (Anon., 2004) Anselm’s argument is a reductio argument, it seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that an absurd result would follow from its denial. I will be discussing three objections to Anselm’s argument which I will reply to, namely: ‘the perfect island’ objection by Gaunilo; ‘existence is not a predicate’ objection by Immanuel Kant and Aquinas objection ‘not everyone has the same concept of God’. I agree Anselm’s ontological argument does indeed show that God exists.

Anselm goes on to justify his assumption by using the analogy of a painter. In short, when a painter first conceives of what it is he wants to accomplish, he has it in his understanding but does not yet understand it to exist. He doesn’t understand it to exist because he has yet to construct his painting. His point in general is that there is a difference between saying that something exists in my mind and saying that I believe that something exists. Anselm goes on to introduce another assumption that could be considered a new version of the argument. He tries to show that God cannot possibly exist in the understanding alone by contrasting existing in the understand with existing in reality.