Phil 1000 Words essay

6871479

Kerry Zhao

Philosophy 1

Feb 4, 2020

From the argument in Korma's book “Learning from Argument,” for the non-existence of

God, the author lays down an argument that there is no God. The rationale behind his argument

is based on the proof of the encounters of evil and the suffering the world undergoes. The author

asserts, “If God is omnipotent, he can put off the suffering faced by human beings. The

argument further elucidates that when one tours the world, they get to see wondrous stunning

creations, such as beautiful mountain peaks and prairies, staggering skyscrapers, galleries,

athletic talents, among others. At the same time, one can experience excess suffering and pain.

Then, the question arises how such negative experiences such as extreme lack of basic

necessities of life, social,-economic inequalities, and misdemeanor, and a lot of injustice

(Korman, p. 20).

All these extremes are permitted by God on account of his weakness and limitation of

power and knowledge. Therefore this cannot be the God believers would have and accept as

omnipotence, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Hence, God does not exist. In this way, we put

into disrepute the premises of omnipotence, God is omniscient, and God is omnibenovelence. In

order for the paper to achieve its desired goal, it will approach the three-fold methodological

ways-“ 1. Lay down the claim that God is non-existence, 2. It will give my own contribution to

this problem, 3. It will visualize possible objections that other authors may find in my argument.

In this way, a more persuasive argument for the non-existence of God would be presented as

follows.

AS1- The existence of suffering in the world.

AS2- This is the claim that if God existed, then there would be no suffering

AS3- Therefore, AS1, contradicts AS2.

Under AS1, we observe suffering in the world. This is experienced from everyday issues

of life such as hunger, poverty, conflict among others, and the magnitude of emotional pains.

Claim AS2 says if there is a caring God, there would be no suffering because God is supposed to

be perfect and caring that is omniscience, Omnibenevolence, and omniscience (All-knowing,

limitless in power and automatically aware of the suffering). Therefore, the reason why there is

suffering in the world is that there is no omniscient being to prevent it. That means that premises

AS3 is dependent on the argument that since there is suffering in the world (according to AS1,

there is suffering in the world). Therefore there is no God because if God existed, there would

be no suffering.

An objection to this conclusion/argument is the assertion by other scholars that if God did

not exist, everything would conflict with one another. For instance, the original meaning of

human existence is conflict. This was put so by the French Philosopher, J.P. Sartre. As it was

put in modern times by the English philosopher: man is a wolf and a fellowman (p. 32). In other

words, if God did not exist, everything would be permissible (Thomas Hobbes, p 212). And so

the question of the existence of God is an inevitable existential problem of the human being.

Evaluation of the criticism of the argument from suffering.

The aim of this criticism is to reconcile the argument for the existence of evil in the world

with the contention that God allows the occurrence of evil. The argument to this end is as

follows.

1. This is the premise that the best world in spite, of the problem of evil, is one containing

among other elements the kinds of suffering we can endure as a human beings.

2. That being the case, the best possible world is one containing the kinds of suffering we

can endure

3. The conclusion is then that God would convenience permit the kinds of suffering we can

endure, and so the problem of evil is solved

I concur that the first premise (that there is suffering in the world) is compatible with the other

claims) that if God existed, there would be no suffering, which is in part of our human

experience. This is because there is an experience of beauty and goodness. The existence of

good and evil is allowed by God for us to appreciate creations as a whole. Korman’s arguments

are mainly negative in the evaluation of human existence. For instance, the A2 premises claims

to argue that God is responsible for our actin. In this way, he ignores the important view of

human self-causation and ethical motivation of moral autonomy. In this way, Korman would

have us bracket the whole important issue of human responsibility in action. For instance,

Korman disputes the conventional view that murder should be made answerable of his

action of killing an innocent victim. The moral argument behind this excuse is that external

causes, culminating in God himself on the ultimate immovable mover/cause of everything in the

universe, would be accountable for the murderous action. The murderer is exonerated on the

grounds that he had no original intention to kill. It is the context of the ethically relevant

background leading to the miscible hand of God that led to the act of murder. In my view, the

divine intervention in the self-causation of human action is exaggerated in Korman’s account of

the moral process of ethical behavior.

In conclusion, the whole argument leads us to admit that God can create a world that has

elements of evil, such as suffering and pain that are necessary for recognizing the inestimable

value of good things. Therefore, the existence of suffering is not a convincing reason to prove

God’s insistence.

Works Cited

Korma, Daniel Z. "Learning from Arguments." An introduction to Philosophy, 2019, pp. 1-89.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism and Human Emotions. Open Road Media, 2012.

Wright, George, and Thomas Hobbes. Religion, Politics and Thomas Hobbes. Taylor &

Francis, 2006.