Argument from Evil is a renowned argument that tries to dispute the existence of God. Normally, God is considered to be omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. The argument about the existence of God is attributed to Epicurus. According to Davies (2006, p. 9), “EPICURUS’S old questions are yet unanswered. Is he [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Epicuri’s reasoning is referred to as the Logical or Deductive Argument.
Contrarily, Evidential/Inductive Argument holds that the existence of evil reduces the probability of God’s existence. Inductive argument shows that the existence of God is improbable. This argument does not entirely coerce one to reject the existence of God in totality. One of the responses to this belief is the Human Epistemological Limitations.
The priori argument of God’s existence or Ontological arguments hold that God exists. It relies on a premise that draws from some source that is not necessarily based on observation (reason alone). These arguments are developed from nothing or no observable facts (a priori) but demonstrate the existence of God.
A good example of a priori argument was first formulated by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the Proslogion. Jordan (2011, p. 23) notes that Anselm tries to “prove the existence of that than which no greater can be conceived”. In response to Anselm argument, Gaunilo gave a parallel to that than which nothing greater can be thought. He thus talked of that island than which no greater can be thought to mean that a great island is only an imagination. If we go by Anselm’s argument, then even a greater island could be imagined. In conclusion, Gaunilo terms Anselm’s argument a fallacy (Oppy, 2011). Anselm developed a rebuttal to Gaunilo’s Island argument since he refuted Gaunilo’s inference of the initial argument of the Proslogion.