Question: A paper usually has three parts: first, an introduction. The introduction tells the reader what the paper is about. It ends with a thesis statement which tells the reader exactly what you're going to do in the paper; what position you're going to take. The second part is the body where you develop your ideas. And the last part is a conclusion which is a mere repetition of the introduction. Let's suppose you're writing about the existence of God and the problem of evil. Briefly, it will look something like this.

Introduction: the main obstacle to belief in God is the problem of evil. Evil is that which inflicts unnecessary pain on living beings. There is cancer, war, poverty, racism, murder, animal cruelty, rape, genocide, hurricanes, droughts, genetic disorders, tsunamis, earthquakes in the world. How can it be said that the Creator is good, when little animals freeze to death or are incinerated in forest fires, when innocent men are tortured or beheaded by their fellow men, or when innocent women and children burn to death in atomic bomb attacks. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, it seems that he would not have allowed the existence of suffering in the world. Since there is apparent unnecessary suffering, then God does not exist, claim atheists. In this paper, I take the opposite view. I argue that the existence of evil is not evidence that God does not exist (thesis statement). So you're going to argue that despite the existence of evil, God still exists.

Body: to make your paper long and fair, include one or two arguments of the atheist that you're familiar with and explain why they are not convincing arguments. For example: first, the theory of evolution by natural selection clearly demonstrates that there is no intelligence that designed life. Our existence is simply a glorious accident. No one, nothing meant for us to exist. It all happened by chance. In fact, evolution itself is endless torture and agony. Second, why doesn't God interfere to protect the innocent from suffering and injustice? Why doesn't he simply end all evils and suffering if he has the power to do so? Since he does not, then there is no God

(So you try to convince the reader that these two arguments are not really good arguments. You try to show what is wrong with them. Then you provide your own arguments). For example:

First, evil is the price we way for having free will. Evil is a consequence of free will. If we're truly free, we also have the ability to choose wrongly and God cannot prevent that.

Second, free will is necessary for morality and love. We cannot love genuinely if we are not free. For us to love, we must know the good.

For us to know the good, we must be moral and free. But morality cannot be programmed into us. So it must evolve out of suffering.

Third, there cannot be good without evil. How can we know what joy is if we never experience pain?

Fourth, our view of the world is finite and limited. So we're in no position to judge its overall goodness.

Fifth, creation requires suffering. No great things have been accomplished without suffering.

So you take one or two of these arguments and discuss them and give some examples.Expand on them.

Conclusion: you briefly repeat your reasoning, your main points, main arguments and conclude this is the reason why you think that the existence of evil is not evidence that God does not exist.

Your paper should satisfy the following minimal guidelines:

• Typed

• 1-3 sources

• 4 pages

• Follow either Chicago, MLA or APA manual of style

• Times New Roman 12

• Double space

All papers will be evaluated for:

• Content

• Organization

• Effective argumentation

• Clarity

• Sentence level concerns (i.e., grammar, spelling, syntax).

• Critical understanding of the ideas and/or philosophical theories under discussion. (If any of these components is deemed unsatisfactory, the paper as a whole will be considered unsatisfactory)