The problem of evil is very simple: Why would evil exist if there were an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and all perfect god? Evil has been a major obstacle for those who hold tough faith in a higher being. With suffering being a normal aspect of life on earth (not limited to the rest of the universe), it becomes a challenge to maintain faithfulness in a good, fair and just god who can watch as the world swarms with pain and injustice. The problem of evil challenges a greater deity and suggests that a higher entity cannot exist with evil. There are two ways to approach such a problem. Either by reducing the meaning of God and removing certain characteristics from a deity because the idea of an all powerful god and evil existing is nonsensical or by accepting evil and considering it as a trial or a test of loyalty from god that will eventually lead to a reward on Judgment Day.
In Leibniz’s Theodicy, he doesn’t attempt to prove the existence of both evil and God’s omnipotence; so much as he tries to argue that is plausible and reasonable to believe in a god with the evident existence of evil. He does so by justifying (or attempts to) the evil in the world. His main justification is that this is “the best of all possible worlds” because if it weren’t, evil would exist in a much greater, powerful form and a benevolent god is free to create “any possible world he pleased.” He also argues that creating the world (universe) with the least amount of evil is a moral obligation that a perfect god would need to abide by, because anything less would make god evil (to an extent). That being said, Leibniz doesn’t completely reject the concept of evil existing and thinks it is beneficial for the universe to contain evil because of “Th...
... middle of paper ...
...plain why evil exists if god is all knowing, all good and benevolent. A benevolent god should be more than capable of creating morally sound humans (and animals) who wouldn’t need a bigger picture to appreciate the good and remain moral. My only criticism of Hume is that his arguments are not necessarily timeless. We are not as limited as we used to be and we continue to thrive everyday, however that is expected of Hume since he hadn’t experienced the medical and scientific strides achieved over the years and knowledge must first be experienced.
The problem of evil will always continue to elude us. For centuries, humans have been trying to reach a conclusion as to why evil exists. Evil has been studied scientifically and philosophized but conclusions are never reached. There’s nothing we can do but learn to accept that it is a natural part of the world we live in.
It is perhaps the most difficult intellectual challenge to a Christian how God and evil can both exist. Many of the greatest minds of the Christian church and intellects such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas spent their entire lives trying to solve this problem, and were unsuccessful (Erickson, 2009, p.439). However, this dilemma is not only an intellectual challenge, but it is emotional. Man feels it, lives it. Failing to identify the religious form of the problem of evil will appear insensitive; failure to address the theological form will seem intellectually insulting. This conundrum will never be completely met during our earthly life, but there are many biblical and philosophical resources that help mitigate it.
There are two kinds of evil, moral and natural. Moral evil is things like murder, rape, stealing, terrorism, etc. Natural evil is things like suffering and unpleasantness typically as a result of moral evil. Evil is that which has no power of its own. Evil is darkness, a negation of light. Its power is in us, in our fear of it, in that we consider it a "something" worth responding to.
In the excerpt from Philosophy of Religion, John Hicks outlines the problem of evil as such:
Throughout the world, most people believe in some type of god or gods, and the majority of them understand God as all-good, all-knowing (omniscient), and all-powerful (omnipotent). However, there is a major objection to the latter belief: the “problem of evil” (P.O.E.) argument. According to this theory, God’s existence is unlikely, if not illogical, because a good, omniscient, and omnipotent being would not allow unnecessary suffering, of which there are enormous amounts.
The problem of evil is inescapable in this fallen world. From worldwide terror like the Holocaust to individual evils like abuse, evil touches every life. However, evil is not a creation of God, nor was it in His perfect will. As Aleksandr
There is evil. 3. So, God does not exist”. Since there is evil, then that means God does not exist. So there is no loving and powerful God. However, if there is a God then he is not all loving and powerful. Daniel Howard-Snyder states in his article “God, Evil, And Suffering,”: “We would have to say God lacks power and knowledge to such an extent that He can 't prevent evil. And there lies the trouble. For how could God have enough power and knowledge to create and sustain the physical universe if He can 't even prevent evil? How could He be the providential governor of the world if He is unable to do what even we frequently do, namely prevent evil?” (5). This statement argues that God is not all powerful because he is unable to prevent evil in the world. Daniel Howard-Snyder then argues that: “Would a perfectly good being always prevent evil as far as he can? Suppose he had a reason to permit evil, a reason that was compatible with his never doing wrong and his being perfect in love, what I 'll call a justifying reason. For example, suppose that if he prevented evil completely, then we would miss out on a greater good, a good whose goodness was so great that it far surpassed the badness of evil. In that case, he might not prevent evil as far as he can, for he would have a justifying reason to permit it” (5). Even if God had a reason to allow evil, he who is all loving and powerful would want the least amount of people to suffer and feel pain. Since God knows
Has evil always been around, or did man create it? One could trace evil all the way back to Adam and Eve; however, evil came to them, but it was not in them. When did evil become part of a person? No one knows, but evil has been around for a long time and unfortunately is discovered by everyone. In many great classics in literature evil is at the heart or the theme of the novel, including Harper Lee’s novel To Kill a Mockingbird. This classic book demonstrates the growing up of two children in the South and illustrates the theme of evil by showing how they discover, how they deal, and how they reconcile themselves to the evils they experience.
In whole, evil is not inherent because evil can change or influence a person’s way of thinking, can consume people the more they are relinquished to it, and can mold a person when a person has power or feel a certain way. Furthermore, evil can be created when people are exposed to gaining a huge amount of power and thinking that wrong is right. In addition, the articles “What Made This Man? Mengele,” “Stanley Milgram and the Uncertainty of Evil,” and “Zimbardo - Stanford Prison Experiment” gives proof and strong points that evil is not inherent based on the experiments that were conducted, how the individuals acted upon it the experiments, and the people who created the experiments. In short, evil is not inherent and there is no way that people can say that evil is inherent.
This is addressed in the article “Do Good and Evil Exist?”, written by Richard Koch; author of “The 80/20 Principle” and a masters degree from Oxford University. In the article Koch gives reasons whether to believe good and evil do or do not exist. His first point is that there have been people who are considered good and evil, thereby evil does exist. Obvious people include Hitler, Stalin, Dracula and for for some people this enough evidence to believe it is real. He also takes it a step further to favor a theist or at least agnostic point of view by mentioning that there are things in nature that cannot be explained; in particular, the human unconscious mind, arguing that it may be connected to something greater than humanity 's understanding. This is an attempt to establish an outside force that would prove good and evil exist. In contrast, Koch understands that even by his own logic there are many reasons to believe evil is non-existent. To counter the religious point of view, Koch mentions that religious perspectives have flipped over time. For instance, he says Christians and pagans used to believe that they were accompanied by many literal spiritual beings above the or below them. Now it seems as if ancient tribes and extremist groups believe this while modern day thiests take it in a different context. Thus, the foundation of spiritual belief is unstable and is able to change over time. Furthermore, an argument is made that science has been the sole reason why life gets better and how good and evil are determined. Thereby, science has provided insight on how to make humans happier, instead of the source of happiness being due to an outside force (Koch, 2014). This proves that there is uncertainty and disagreement to what evil is and if it even exists. Even more reason to abolish the word from language due to its
J.L. Mackie discusses the problem of evil in a logical sense in his article inside our textbook. There are four beliefs when discussing the problem of evil. These beliefs are that God is Omnipotent, God is Omniscient, God is Omnibenevolent, and that Evil and Suffering exist. The common conception we have of God is that he is the best possible being that can exist. He is all good, knows all, and all powerful. The problem seems to be that if God is all of these things, how can there possibly be evil and suffering? If a tri-Omni God does truly exist, then it is not possible for evil and suffering to exist. And vice versa, if evil and suffering exist, then a tri-Omni god cannot exist.
In order to understand The Problem of Evil, we must first understand the concept of God. The God that this problem addresses is what we call a PKM god. This god is accepted in multiple religions, such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Over half of the world population claims to be followers of any of
if God truly existed, there would be no evil. Since evil does exist in the
If evil cannot be accounted for, then belief in the traditional Western concept of God is absurd” (Weisberger 166). At the end of the day, everyone can come up with all these numerous counter arguments and responses to the Problem of Evil but no one can be entirely responsible or accountable for the evil and suffering in a world where there is the existence of a “omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God.” Does the argument of the Problem of Evil or even the counter arguments help the evil and suffering of innocent human beings across this world? No. However, the Problem of Evil is most successful in recognizing the evil and suffering of the world but not presenting a God that is said to be wholly good and perfect to be blamed and as a valid excuse for the deaths and evil wrongdoings of this world.
To understand evil we must first understand the concept that good and evil are term or words referring to what one given individuals believes to be the right and wrong thing to do. Good, many times symbolized as god or light, is usually associated with an action that many individual see as helping one or many people. This definitions is again very hard to define due to it bias and opinionated nature. But many and most people will agree that good, is what helps not only the common people become a stronger as a community but also become stronger as in...
The problem of evil is as it sounds: how could an omnibenevolent and omnipotent being allow for people to undergo suffering, sadness, and hardship. These conditions are seemingly under the influence of the greatest conceivable being, and should be able to be removed by him if he chose. Thus since evil exists, and since the greatest conceivable being has to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent it is not possible that both evil and a greatest conceivable being could coexist. This argument is very compelling, yet is not completely sound. There have been many criticisms of this theory, the strongest being the concept that there cannot be mountains without valleys (Green 56). This criticism argues that it is not possible to experience joy without having some understanding of pain. One can also not demonstrate certain admirable qualities like forgiveness or compassion without being wronged or having experienced some evil. It is impossible to imagine a universe in which evil in some form does not exist. Typically when one refers to greatest conceivable being’s omnipotence they mean that the greatest conceivable being is able to do all things that are possible in a universe. One can then infer that because we cannot imagine a universe without pain or evil, it