The question of whether God exists has been the focus of discussions since the times immemorial. Numerous arguments have been provided by both sides of the discussion, each being rather impressive and logically coherent. In the text under analysis, both deductive and inductive reasoning is used to prove that God does not exist. For instance, the author uses an inductive line of reasoning quite successfully to prove their point. Particularly, the inductive argument is constructed by claiming that the life on Earth does not seem to be sustained by the presence of God. Therefore, God does not exist.
To be more accurate, the author of the analysis points to the fact that people act in the way that does not imply that God exists. The pain that they inflict upon each other does not suggest that God is omnipotent and benevolent. Therefore, the author comes to the conclusion that God as a benevolent and omnipotent being as He is described in the Bible cannot possibly be a reality. Hence, using the principles of inductive reasoning, the author infers that God does not exist. The specified argument is partially in line with the STAR criteria. For instance, it is quite accurate and relevant since it uses the available evidence extensively and applies mostly recent information. However, the sufficiency of the analysis is questionable since the author does not embrace the concept of pain from a spiritual and Biblical perspective. Similarly, some of the information concerning the fact that the human race is doomed may be not quite typical. Therefore, some of the elements of the argument may be regarded as lacking consistency. Thus, the induction seems not quite strong, yet moderate. Hence, the argument is both considerably persuasive yet open to critique.
The deductive reasoning used by Lewis is, in turn, quite convincing, yet it may have its flaws. The premise is that not all creatures are happy; particularly, not all people are happy. Quite on the contrary, a lot of people are in pain and, therefore, experience considerable suffering. If people are suffering and in pain, God does not have the omnipotence and benevolence that are typically attributed to Him. Therefore, He does not exist as the concept of the omnipotent and benevolent being as He is described in the Bible. The argument is quite persuasive and straightforward, yet it is also open to critique. For instance, it does not disprove the presence of God directly; instead, it points to the fact that He might not have the omnipotence and powers that are usually used to describe Him. However, the argument may imply that God exists as a being that possesses other powers, or that the current concept of God is erroneous. Thus, the argument opens possibilities for refuting it. The deduction meets the standards of the formal logic since it follows the standard valid logical form. The premises are true, and the argument seems sound.
It seems that the first argument is more convincing than the second one. Although each of the statements has its flaws, the second one leaves no opportunities for generalizing the main statement. As a result, it becomes rather flat. The first argument, however, is much more generic. Being based on observations and specifying that commonplace phenomena are utilized for the analysis, it makes certain errors in assumptions more forgivable. As a result, the overall message of the argument becomes considerably stronger. The identified outcome is quite surprising seeing that each of the assumptions under analysis is aimed to prove the same idea and uses roughly the same tools to do so.