Argument analize 3 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Argument analize 3 - Essay Example However, it is a fact that pain and suffering do exist in the world, and its occurrence is beyond our control, for the very concept of God is pre-established in our ontology, for, by definition, we understand God as a benevolent and omnipotent creator. Thus, if God were not benevolent, then there would be no problem of pain and suffering. Therefore, either God is not benevolent or he is not omnipotent, or he is not benevolent and omnipotent. 2. Reconstructing the Argument of Pain The argument can be logically reconstructed as follows: 1. God is the benevolent and omnipotent creator of the natural world 2. If God were benevolent, then pain and suffering would not exist in his creations 3. If God were omnipotent, then he would everything in his power to eradicate pain and suffering. 4. Pain and suffering nevertheless exist as experienced by God’s creations 5. God could not have created pain and suffering, for that would contradict his benevolent and omnipotent nature 6. Therefor e, given that pain and suffering exists, either God is not benevolent or is not omnipotent, or is neither benevolent nor omnipotent. 3. ... Likewise, third premise follows from the first and the second, for if God were omnipotent, then he would use his powers to eradicate pain and suffering, since by nature, God is benevolent. Thus, the third premise is also true. However, things get a bit more complicated come the fourth premise, which states that pain and suffering exist as experienced in God’s creations. As C.S. Lewis explains, this is problematic for the main reason that what we experience as ‘pain and suffering’ in the natural world may not be ‘pain and suffering’ for God. Likewise, what we understand as ‘benevolent and omnipotent’ may not be the same as God’s understanding of ‘benevolent and omnipotent.’ This complexity is exemplified due to structure of our language. We understand good and evil to be two conflicting terms for instance. So the problem of reconciling good and evil becomes a problem only because we understand these concepts to conflict with each other. Based on the problem of pain, it was proposed that it is due to God’s benevolent nature that the problem of pain becomes a problem; that if God were something other than benevolent, then the problem is solved. This is evident in premise five, wherein it was shown that God, who is good, could not have created something that was not good, that is, pain and suffering. It is in this regard that the author concludes that either God’s omnipotence or benevolence, or both, is thus questionable. However, I do not think that this conclusion will suffice, for the transition from premise five to its conclusion misses an important point. This is as follows: Following premise four, premise five states that â€Å"God could not have created pain and suffering, for that would contradict his