More handpicked essays just for you.
Idea of good vs evil
Introductory statements on the problem of evil essay
Introductory statements on the problem of evil essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The problem of evil is a difficult objection to contend with for theists. Indeed, major crises of faith can occur after observing or experiencing the wide variety and depths of suffering in the world. It also stands that these “evils” of suffering call into question the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The “greater good defense” tries to account for some of the issues presented, but still has flaws of its own. In the excerpt from Philosophy of Religion, John Hicks outlines the problem of evil as such: (a) If God were truly omnibenevolent, he would then wish to eliminate all evil; (b) If God is were truly omnipotent, he would then be capable of eliminating evil; (c) Evil exists in the world. Therefore: (d) God is not omnibenevolent or He is not omnipotent. Either element of the conclusion is damaging to the traditional understanding of a Judeo-Christian God. It seems simple enough. A benevolent Creator appears incompatible with what we understand to be the existence of evil. Evil is opposed to God’s will, eventually cumulating in the crucifixion of God’s son, Jesus. One must then wonder how an all-loving and all-powerful God would allow such pain to occur to both his creation and Jesus. A perfect God’s world should be similarly perfect. The world is not perfect so it seems that God must not be all-loving or He must not be all-powerful. Rejecting the existence of evil, immediately rejects too much of the Judeo-Christian tradition to be considered, though some philosophers have considered it. The traditional Christian answer to why God allowed the death of Christ is for the absolution of humanity’s sin. However, this begs the question, as an omnipotent God why was it necess... ... middle of paper ... ...owardice or evil (2) must then work to minimize good (1) and maximize evil (1). This process can continue ad infinitum It also follows that God, not as benevolent as could be hoped, prefers the maximization of good (2) as opposed to the minimization of evil (1). This is disquieting for the individual who might be the victim of suffering a “greater good.” It appears that the problem of evil is a substantial one. While arguments exist that can challenge assumptions of the problem, it sometimes requires some definition contorting and does not answer all the challenges evil presents. The greater good defense presents some key insights into how we must perceive God’s actions but does not completely defend against the presented problems of evil. Therefore, a more plausible defense is needed to eliminate the problems evil creates with the Judeo-Christian concept of God.
A second and stronger objection to Mackie’s version of the problem of evil is explained to us using the terms 1st and 2nd order goods and evils. 1st order goods/evils are purely physical. Examples are pleasure and pain, happiness and misery. It is claimed by many theists that 1st order evils such as pain and suffering are necessary for 2nd order goods like courage and charity. However there exists what Mackie calls a “fatal objection” to this claim and that is that along with 2nd order goods there must also exist 2nd order evil...
Today, we see evil everywhere like murder, rape, stealing, injustice is all shown daily on the news. Philip Yancey in “Where is God When It Hurts,” shows throughout the book evil, what evil does to people and the world. For example, evil caused Donna to have leukemia (Yancey 250). Theodicy was created to defend others when people say that ‘God causes evil’ but in realitic God does not cause the evil that happen in the world it humans that causes evil.
There is so much evil in the world such as: murder, child mortality, torture, rape, assault and more. So how can there be an all loving God if these things are constantly happening? In this paper, I will be arguing that there is in fact no such thing as an all loving and all powerful God due to Evil. When I think of an all-loving God, I think of God as someone who would never allow a child to be kidnapped, raped, tortured and killed. I think of God as someone who would not allow anything bad or evil to happen in this world.
The problem of evil, as articulated by J.L. Mackie, concerns the consistency of the following claims typically accepted by theists: God is omniscient; God is omnipotent; God is omnibenevolent; evil exists. If God is omniscient, then he should know about all evil that exists. If God is omnipotent, then it should be within his power to prevent all evil from occurring. Finally, if God is omnibenevolent, then it should be the case that he would not permit the evil that he is capable of preventing. The fact that evil does exist seems to indicate an inconsistency in the set of claims. In other words, the existence of evil seems to threaten the status of at least one of the divine attributes. This paper will explicate Alvin Plantinga's response to the problem of evil, in which he invokes the concept of transworld depravity. He argues that it is possible that all agents suffer this condition, and so, if this were the case, then God could not actualize any possible world in which free
In this paper, I will argue against two of the many proposals that Andrea M. Weisberger represents in her book, Suffering Belief. I will first argue against her claims that evil is not necessary as a means of bringing forth good and that it is not a counterpart to good because she is not successful in acknowledging that the very basic elements of compassion are driven by the roof of suffering, and that one without the other, only results in the absence of higher consciousness. My second argument will be against her proposal which states that evil is not necessary for a long term good because she fails to recognize that the evil which involves millions of deaths due to natural disasters or man-made events, is necessary to maintain the earth’s carrying capacity in the long run. Weisberger’s claim that evil is not necessary as a means of good branches into two different points. Her first point, being that evil is not necessary to maintain the earth’s carrying capacity in the long run, and second, that evil is not necessary for long term goods. I will argue with her proposal against long term goods later in my paper, and for now, focus on her proposal against short term goods and how evil can’t be a means in bringing forward good in general, along with her rejection of the idea that it can’t be a counterpart to good.
Philosophers of the Medieval period struggled with the problem of evil - specifically, the existence of evil brought a question to the fore: if the world was created by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, then how was it that evil existed? To further complicate the matter, a second question branched off of the first as individuals pondered over whether or not God was ultimately the cause of evil. If God created everything, and evil exists as part of everything, then God, logically, had created evil. But this presented yet another issue, in that if God had knowingly created evil, then he could not truly be all-good. And it is these concerns that philosophers addressed.
...which have varying amounts of goodness, something must be good beyond all the other things. In such a world, we might know God is good beyond all else, but without evil, the significance of that knowledge is diminished. When there is good and evil, another dimension is added. A tension is added. Even if it is a psychological response, humans are more compelled when there are two opposing sides. We see God as being so good, that he can easily overcome and conquer the most evil of things. Mackie is wrong to claim it is fallacious to believe the universe is better off with evil. Without evil, our minds could not begin to understand how special God truly is.
This certainly does not reflect a caring and compassionate God as he seems to lord his shifting favor over Job. Leikand (2010), a self-professed Humanist, ends his article with this thought, “Here is what I believe: Each of us is responsible for the private and public meanings of our own lives…we can’t rely on supernatural powers to help us.” Atheists use this concept in the form of several academic arguments to combat belief. This particular argument is called the “This is not the best possible world” argument.
Over time, this concept that morality cannot be separate from God has encountered perpetual doubt from several atheists. The Bible tells us in Luke 18:19 that, “No one is good – except God alone” (Bible). From this, a believer might argue that we are incapable of being good, but by God’s grace and mercy we can be better. Atheists who speak in terms of good and evil have manipulated religious dialogue in their favor; they ha...
Introduction. I will first present my argument as to why the God of perfect-being theology cannot be evil. Following will be a defense to support my premises.
There have been several approaches to solve this problem. The Theist might claim that there is evil in the world in order to bring a greater good, but J.L Mackie in Evil and Omnipotence meticulously displays why that theodicy is faulty. Mackie asserts God cannot claim omnipotence and be unable to create a universe containing moral good while simultaneously lacking moral evil. Alvin Plantinga brings forth a formidable theodicy, called the The Free Will Defense. Plantinga asserts that God created us with free will so consequently it is not within the sphere of omipotentness to bind the will of an inherently free creature. I, shall be writing nor about Mackie or Plantinga but rather the erroneous assumptions entangled in
A foundational belief in Christianity is the idea that God is perfectly good. God is unable to do anything evil and all his actions are motives are completely pure. This principle, however, leads to many questions concerning the apparent suffering and wrong-doing that is prevalent in the world that this perfect being created. Where did evil come from? Also, how can evil exist when the only eternal entity is the perfect, sinless, ultimately good God? This question with the principle of God's sovereignty leads to even more difficult problems, including human responsibility and free will. These problems are not limited to our setting, as church fathers and Christian philosophers are the ones who proposed some of the solutions people believe today. As Christianity begins to spread and establish itself across Europe in the centuries after Jesus' resurrection, Augustine and Boethius provide answers, although wordy and complex, to this problem of evil and exactly how humans are responsible in the midst of God's sovereignty and Providence.
The problem of reconciling an omnipotent, perfectly just, perfectly benevolent god with a world full of evil and suffering has plagued believers since the beginning of religious thought. Atheists often site this paradox in order to demonstrate that such a god cannot exist and, therefore, that theism is an invalid position. Theodicy is a branch of philosophy that seeks to defend religion by reconciling the supposed existence of an omnipotent, perfectly just God with the presence of evil and suffering in the world. In fact, the word “theodicy” consists of the Greek words “theos,” or God, and “dike,” or justice (Knox 1981, 1). Thus, theodicy seeks to find a sense of divine justice in a world filled with suffering.
The problem of evil has been a huge debate between atheists and theists. The problem of evil is how can evil occur in the world if God, a perfect being, created the world, and why do bad things happen to good people if God is in charge. Used to critique theism, the problem of evil questions God’s perfection and his existence. It questions God’s perfection by saying, “Whoever does not chose the best is lacking in power, or in knowledge, or in goodness” (Leibniz 89). This means that people do not think that God can be all powerful or perfect because they do not think that this world was the best possible choice. The problem of evil also critiques the question of God’s existence by saying, “If there is more evil than
Tooley, Michael, "The Problem of Evil", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .