Does the fact evil exist, disprove God`s existence?

Question

Comment on the following argrument, note arguements of this nature are usually dubbed "Argument from Evil."

P1. If God were to exist, then that being would be all powerful, all-knowing, and all good (All PKG for short)
P2.If an all-PKG being existed, then there would be no evil.
P3. There is evil.
Conclusion. Hence, there is no God.

Note* This argument is deductively valid, so to disprove this arguement u must disprove one or more of the preceeding premises.
Note*Citing Biblical passages as a negation to this arguement is a logical Fallacy termed Circularity..that is if I did not beleive in biblical passages then citing such is to assume I believe in Biblical passages.

No, I did not create this arguemnt Yes I do agree with it. There is a God...There is no God limits God to There is.
"There" being a plane of dimenison aka 3d world.
"Is" being that which exists within said dimenson which is relevant upon other realms of scope and possibiltiy to exist.
I.e. Humans require Earth, Oxygen, Water to have existed.
God is beyond dimension and scopes of posssibility hence, God does not exist God is......God is the constant energy which is beyond existence iteslf

LMAO... Elliot Sober was right. Try to incooperate Logic in an arguement and the Masses will run for the fences...LOL

Go Ahead hide behind your ignorance.

Lmao..The ignorance just doesn`t end. IM NOT An Athesist those people are idiots.

Ohhh my God he got it!
Everyone look at "mswrc09" answer that`s logical reasoning at its finest. Disregard the subject matter of God existence and look at the reasoning!

Keith M a genius. I throw in the towel. 10pts granted as soon as 4 hrs hits.

Answer 1

Let me start by stating that I am agnostic, but I do love a good debate/discussion/argument. So...

Since you are right about the structure of formal arguments, I will have to address the premisses in order to work through the logic. Let's begin with P1.

P1 has two issues. First, it commits what I will label the omni-error. God is seen as omnipotent, omnibenevelant, and omnipresent, etc. etc. God, then, using your PKG label, is incapable of not knowing everything. It must know completely and totally. Knowing, however, is a tricky thing because it is BOTH predictability and BEING. Two quick examples will help; (1) 4 + 2 = ?, you KNOW (or can predict) that 6 is the answer because you KNOW the roles and the language of mathematics, but (2) If I ask you, do you KNOW what it is like to skydive naked as a Black lesbian who is Republican? You probably do not have that type of KNOWING. (b/c I doubt that is your subject position and you have done that act). In the formulaic math form of KNOWING, P1 seems to work. However, it seems to fail at the experiential form of knowing. Can God know what it is like to be a woman? a dog? You may answer yes to those, but I would then push further. Can God know what it is like to have NEVER created the Universe? Or to NEVER have had a Son (if you're christian)? You may even be smart enough to say that he is atemporal and therefore has "lived"/"seen" all possible time lines. To this, I would push a tad more. Can God KNOW what it would be like to have NEVER existed? Or going with being all good, can God Know what it feels like to inflict UNNECESSARY pain on another living being? (the answer to this seems to limit EITHER his Knowing or his Goodness). If we wish to call to question his power, let us ask the question posed by another, "Can God make a rock that even he can't lift?" Someone aware will see that however the question is answered God becomes a limited being. The second thing in P1 is the wording: In essence, it simply defines "God" by the terms "all powerful, all-knowing...." etc. How could this ever be determined? Let us suppose that a being comes to Earth. The being is really an alien from outer space but has done his homework and knows all things about the Earth, human race, history, etc. Actually, this alien knows all that can be known with the exception of one thing (that which only a God would know). If that ONE thing is also something that all the human race also doesn't know, then humans as a whole will see this alien AS IF he were God because there is no criterion known to judge him as other than that.

While earlier I said it would be two points for P1, I must say that it also presupposes that to have the PK qualities, it must have the G. Is it not possible that Descartes' evil genius is God? In fear of governments, some even say, "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Shouldn't this also apply to God? If not, why not?

The above also seems to already address P2.

P3, I have to say I agree with.

Given that P1 and P2 are put in question, one cannot accept the conclusion outright.

Answer 2

Evil is a judgment not a universal and a matter of degree as well. That the argument is a fallacy doesn't make the conclusion incorrect. Lets say you want a certain result. If you don't get it that's bad to you, but you couldn't decide anyhing if you didn't have a choice. In effect there would be no world. Ayn Rand was an atheist and said that "This is the best of all possible worlds." She also said, "this is the only possible world." Check it out, it's true. There can't be a differention or world without non world. Else there is no difference between the two so evil is good and good is evil or their both the same. Existance and non-existance the same. If you choose non-existance or bad is that bad or your choice? We chose what we have and consequences are good, even necessary. If we don't like it then we can change. If one changes we all change. It's evolution. We all could have changed long ago, but we waited until now. Is it bad that we got the consequences of what we did? What was bad is the choices we made. If you were God would you not make the world because man would be so foolish and still think he's so smart? Why don't you fix the world instead of letting it go and complain that if God existed he would have given you a neat room and you'd never have to do the dishes. Not in this world or any other. While philosophers argue, common sense people will have to fix the world. And if God made a rock he couldn't move he would be stupid. Not one of his qualities. Messing up the world and blaming someone else is immature and irresponsible, not taking responsibility. I doubt he could imagine such ignorance as we have done and we won't quit, no matter how bad it gets.

Answer 3

Hello and well your first problem is the same Holy Bible that tells about GOD tells what EVIL is they come from The Same Holy Bible so if i am to accept your words about evil then you should in fact accept a "it is written" about God right? By the way in order for Love to be Love it must have the right to say NO, the last two chapters says God wins Evil looses which side you on cause there is only two and you WILL be on one or the other, find out more free bible lessons

Answer 4

You did not define good. For God good may include elements of what we call evil. It would be our mistake not His.

One cannot perceive reality until one chooses the right perspective. We already know that the material perspective alone is unacceptable and we already know the spiritual perspective alone is unacceptable. Both are found unacceptable from the perspective that we are elements of reality and therefore capable of making this judgment.

If we actually make this judgment we have already negated God's presence as we are the one who decides from where we look. If you look at any religious text which would be the intellectual foundation for God's existence then the issue of God's existence is flummoxed because no text purporting the existence of God or God's word has yet considered the issue of our perspective.

Conclusion: We have no evidence of His existence as even His word does not consider and/or give rise to a universally acceptable perspective on reality.

Answer 5

There is faulty logic in the leap you take from premise two to premise three.

You state the presence of evil proves the non-existence of God. What is it about the nature of evil that would be able to negate the nature of an all-powerful being? This is a logical fallacy. Is evil so powerful and so infinite that it takes up space for God to exist in? Is there only evil? There IS good in the world, but your statement seems to only reflect the existence of evil.

It's not either God or either evil. There are ugly and false things that exist in this world, but there are also beautiful and true things that exist in this world.

If you state that the existence of God and the existence of evil is a paradox, then how do you explain other paradoxes in our world?

Answer 6

i never listen to anyone talk philosophy before i thought it would be interesting? it was. Did i get it? not really. But when i break down your question.. The existence of evil can not exist with out the PKG. Nor the PKG without evil. as Grandma use to say if God wanted you stay on the mountain tops he would have never made the valleys. (That is if God is a man?) : )

Answer 7

The Fact of it is without Evil, God and the plan He put into
action, (Creation) would be a non issue. The simple thing about it is, doubt, questioning it, and him, is the point. He gave free will so that trust and faith would be the pathway to peace. Opposite of evil and all involved. There is a higher plain you travel in our existence when up is where u look and you deal with what u see below u as He commands. Only in His way are we peaceful. Try to see evil as the force gravity takes on us all. It might cause a misstep to become a fall, but upright is the only way to move forward.

Answer 8

This is a great argument; the Problem of Evil. I think Epicurus first laid it out, but I don't know for certain. I think I may have a counter argument to it, but it's origins and inspirations are from Buddhism, which is ironic as it's an atheistic religion. Anyway, my counter argument is thus:

Evil can be defined as suffering; an evil act is to impose suffering on others, and evil thought is to wish to inflict suffering. To receive evil is to suffer

The source of suffering is our wanting, our desire. This is true because to want or desire is to create a discrepancy between how things *are* and what you decide is how things *should* be. This, at its very root, is discontentment. You are discontented with how things are in the moment, so you want them to be different. But this wanting is what creates the discrepancy. The wanting doesn't make it any less true, nor will it ever as it is a mental act, putting it squarely into the realm of mind, of choice, of will.

If instead we were to be content with things as they are, then there would be no suffering since there is no wanting. Pain can still happen, but you can still be content with the fact that it *is* simply with choice. How? You find things to be content with in *that*, and each individual, moment regardless of your preference. Since we choose to want something, we choose to suffer, thus we suffer and thus there is evil. As long as free will is valid, I can see no way this can be disproved (although Buddhists don't generally believe in free will, but karma).

Just wanted to make things interesting ^_^

Answer 9

there is no good with out evil. Inversely there is no evil with out good. There can be neither with out the comparison between the two.

There can not be one good supreme being with out an evil one. God vs. Devil.

There is evil in the world, with out a doubt. Inversely there is also good. God represents good.

No one can say that God does or does not exist for sure. It is simply a matter of faith. The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved so forget your nonsense logic.

There would be no need for religious guidance if there was no evil.

Answer 10

See the thing is no one knows we don't know till our time comes but that is a good point. I guess God exists because to have good you must have evil 2 sides to a coin yin and yang. SO for every goood soul their is a bad one can't stop it with satan being gods oppisite.