PHL211Paper10 - Molly Shifrin PHL 211 April 6th, 2010 Paper...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Molly Shifrin PHL 211 April 6 th , 2010 Paper #10 I think that McCloskey proves his point quite thoroughly. His argument surrounds one key contradiction in theism and that is the coexistence of an omnipotent, benevolent God and the evil that exists in the world. Although I think that McCloskey proves his point, I feel that there are objections that could be made. As this argument seems to be playing with the definition of God anyway, it seems that the solution that “ Physical Evil Is God’s Punishment for Sin” could be accepted. If God were a cognitive, present thinker and observer, why then could he not witness sin and use evil as a tool? McCloskey’s argument against this is to ask why children are punished, often immediately upon entering the world. Couldn’t it be posed that this is to teach others against sin, not necessarily the children themselves? Children, not having lived long enough have not sinned and inherently have not learned against sinning. The adult or young sinner however has the chance to repent. It seems to be that
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 2

PHL211Paper10 - Molly Shifrin PHL 211 April 6th, 2010 Paper...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online