Problem Of Evil Argument

The problem of evil is a logical problem that creates a contradiction in the theist’s belief that God is both omnipotent and wholly good. If God were all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good, he would be conscious of all the evil that is present in the world, he would be able to cure the suffering that occurs in our world, and he would want there to be only goodness. However, we are a population encompassed by wickedness and cruelty; thus, we cannot logically agree to a God. This conflict, identified as the problem of evil, is a logical

Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” In a similar vein: If God exists, he is all-knowing, omnipotent, and ethically flawless. If God were all-knowing, God would know about all the terrible occasions that occur in our reality. If God were omnipotent, God would have the capacity to do something.

When one examines these two terms, ‘good’ and ‘evil’, one finds out that most sources agree that ‘evil’ is, when put into simplest terms without the fancy words that are

This logical incompatibility between evil and God’s actuality can be made evident in two additional principles provided by Mackie. These are if something is omnipotent, it can do anything and if something is omnibenevolent it will eliminate as much evil as possible. Mackie claims God’s omnipotent characteristic is dependent on him being all powerful. If God is omnipotent than the subjection to limitations, such as the inevitability of evil, should not arise. This first premise is in relation to the second and third because if God is all powerful, wholly good and in existence, the product of his work, our world, should be a reflection of his being.

There are two main ways in which natural evil operates to give humans those choices. First of all, natural evil provides chance for humans to learn how to bring the evil. For example, I can choose to ignore my sick friends instead of showing compassion towards the sufferer. If I get sick, I can either choose to spread it to others or subdue to disease and prevent it from spreading. Humans have the free will to choose to be good or evil.

On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it. I will begin by stating the objection the anti-theodicist gives for why it is wrong that there is a problem of evil. (<--fix) Regarding passive evil not caused by human action, the anti-theodicist claims that there is an issue with a creator, God, allowing a world to exist where evil things happen, which are not caused by human beings (180-181).

In chapter three of Aquinas for Armchair Theologians by Timothy Renick, Aquinas’s philosophy on evil in the world and the free will of humans is heavily discussed. Renick describes a very complex topic and transforms it into something the average person can read and understand. Aquinas answers the questions of whether evil exists, did God create evil, why does evil exist, and if evil exists, who or what removes it. He also answers the questions of whether humans have the free will to make decisions or has God predetermined every decision and its outcome according to his plan. While I found this article somewhat easy to follow, I can understand how some of Aquinas’s arguments can lead to debate or confusion on the nature of God, evil, and free will.

Another Milestone that effects the way we define the notion of “Good and Evil” is largely based on our religion. Therefore, the way we see right from wrong, heaven and hell, light and darkness, Good vs. Evil and God and the Devil comes from the moral criterion that we attempt to apply to our worldviews. However, given the conspicuous contrasts amongst religions, ranging from Christianity to Islam to Judaism. Many people believe that due to the simple fact of religious diversity, this provides the basis to discredit any assumption of moral truths. Some religions define evil as “the result of human sin” or that “Evil is the result of a spiritual being who opposes the Lord God”

In this reading reflection I will be discussing Richard Swinburne’s argument on “Why God Allows Evil” which starts on page 254 in “Exploring Philosophy: An Anthology” by Steven M. Cahn. This was also discussed in class on 9/15/16. In his argument Swinburne states that “An omnipotent God could have prevented this evil, and surely a perfectly good and omnipotent God would have done so. So why is there evil?”(Swinburne, 254).

The problem of evil takes into account three defining features of God: all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful and questions whether such a God would permit evil and not interfere. Sinnott-Armstrong discusses his stance by countering responses he coins as the Glorious Response, the Modest Response, and the Overriding Response. Whereas, Craig counters the arguments made by Sinnott-Armstrong. The Glorious Response Thus response suggests evil is

At the beginning of the article, Mackie states that the initial issue with God’s existence is that, “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, Paragraph 3). If god is such a pure and good being, then he should be able to combat all evil. The first statement that showcases that God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, then evil cannot possibly exist. The definition of omnipotent is

Peter van Inwagen argument entitled “Free Will Defense,” is a theodicy because it attempts to show why God would allow evil in the world as opposed to a defense which would try to explain, logically, how evil could exist in the world with an all-loving an all-powerful God. Peter van Inwagen purposed that, yes, God is all-loving and all-powerful, and because he is all-loving, he allows for humans to make their own decisions even if these decisions lead to evil and pain. I find this to be an extremely satisfying response. It is very plausible that an all-powerful being could and would, in some way, relinquish control as a way to show and practice his love. Autonomy is good, granting free will results in autonomy, therefore granting free will

One might object to the Problem of Evil by giving a theodicy. A theodicy is basically a justification that explains why God allows evil things to happen even though he is all-PGK. In addition, a theodicy is on the “God is all-PGK” side because it might prove that evil is needed in this world in intention of God, and evil is, of course, under control of God. One theodicy is free will. Free will is a gift from God.

Firstly, man is born evil because society shows him to be evil. An example of this is how parents must raise their child to be good. A parent never has to raise their child to do bad things. A young child might draw on the wall and believe that it is art, however the parent will stop the child and tell them that drawing on the wall is a bad thing to do.

Humans have free will because in the everyday lives on an individual they are presented with multiple choices, none of which render the need for a divine power. Saint Augustine states this in the text that individuals are aware of the presence of God, but know they can voluntarily act on the own choices. However, God has the power of foreknowledge. This is because the Lord created everything, meaning he must be aware of what is yet to happen. Augustine again asserts in Book V that God cannot exist without the ability for him to know the future.