Richard Swinburne's "The Problem of Evil": God's Existence
Philosophers have looked for ways to explain God's existence for centuries.
One such argment that the believer must justify in order to maintain the possibility of God's existence is the problem of evil. In his essay, "The
Problem of Evil," by Richard Swinburne, the author attempts to explain how evil can exist in a world created by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Being, namely God. Swinburne uses to free-will defense and says that God gave us a choice between doing good and doing evil. If someone chooses to do good over evil, then that Good is greater than if one had no choice at all but to do good.
This is a weak argument and in order to clarify those weaknesses one can look at Steven M. Cahn's essay entitled "Cacodaemony." This essay parallels
Swineburne's, but states that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnimalevolent Demon created the world. By looking at how weak the argument for cacodaemony is, one can see how unlikely it is that the Demon exists and then can see that the existence of God is just as unlikely.
In "The Problem of Evil", Swinburne says that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Being created the world. If this were true, how can evil exist in this world? If God consciously knew He was creating a world in which there is evil, then He would not be omnibenevolent. If God did not know He was creating a world in which evil exists, then He would not be omniscient. If God is omnipotent then He would be able to stop any evil from occurring. Either way,
God would not be what Christianity makes him out to be. Swinburne argues that the theodicist, one who believes that it is not wrong for God to create a world in which there is evil, can logically explain the existence of evil in the world.
The main argument that the theodicist uses is the free-will defense, which claims that God gave humans the freedom to choose between doing acts of good and acts of evil. The theodicist argues that the good person could do is greater if it is chosen instead of doing evil. It is better to choose to walk an elderly person across the road instead of deciding to push the elderly person in front of an oncoming car. The theodicist believes that it is better for a person to have that choice, though nearly everyone would naturally choose to help the person acro...
... middle of paper ...
... everyone just fought and hated each other, just like this world would be a better place if everyone was peaceful and happy. This Demon could not exist because there is too much good in the world, and that good does not get an adequate explanation. Since the arguments for Cacodaemony is disproved, so is the one for the theodicist, since these two arguments are equally likely and equally weak.
By looking at Cahn's "Cacodaemony," one can see how improbably it is that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnimalevolent Demon created the world. Cahn's argument, however, exactly parallels Swinburne's in "The Problem of Evil." Both use the free-will defense to attempt to explain how evil or goodness could exist in a world created by God or a Demon. Both arguments have the same strength, as
Cahn notes, and both are very weak arguments. If it seems unlikely that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnimalevolent Demon created the world, then it is just as unlikely that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being created the world. It is likely that neither God nor the Demon exists, and the problem of evil and the problem of goodness wind up supporting the position of the atheist.
An Analysis of Peter van Inwagen’s The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: a Theodicy
I will suppose therefore that not God, who is supremely good and the source of truth, but rather some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me. I shall think that the sky, the air, the earth, colours, shapes, sounds and all external things are merely the delusions of dreams which he has devised to ensnare my judgment.
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
The philosopher J.L. Mackie wrote a very convincing piece on the problem of evil called “Evil and Omnipotence,” in which he attempts to show that one of the following premises must be false in order for them to be consistent with each other.
While traditional theology has characterized God as being omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, we all have seen instances of evil in the world, from the genocide currently occurring in Darfur to the mass torture seen in the Spanish Inquisition, where people have been forced to suffer at the hands of others for millennia. Mackie’s argument is that an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God has the means, knowledge and desire to prevent such instances of evil from occurring, and yet evil clearly exists. Mackie argues that the removal of any one of the ascribed characteristics would solve the problem of evil; however few theologians have been prepared to accept this as the only solution. (Mackie, 1955)
The Problem of Evil is the question that asks if God is perfectly benevolent, all-powerful, and all-knowing, then how can he allow evil to exist? Many philosophers have tried to answer this age-old question, often focusing on the intellect and the will. This essay will explore and compare the ways in which Descartes, Leibniz, and Berkeley each attempt to solve this dilemma.
...y in question is able to do anything that it chooses to do. The second point is that the idea that God cannot create a world with free beings that never choose to do evil is contradictory if we consider the existence of Heaven, which allegedly is an evil-free place where beings are free to exercise their will and apparently never choose to do evil. But I will address this issue later on. First of all, the definition of omnipotence that I provided, of course, might be rejected by theologians who object that “being able to do anything that one chooses to do,” for example, does not include “creating a world with free beings that never turn away from the good and never choose to do evil.” But the problem is that if God is omnipotent but there is one thing he cannot do, it follows that omnipotence is not one of God’s attributes or omnipotence in this case is a misnomer.
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
Humans come to understand experiences through the basic functions of the mind. The word "experience" refers not only to personal involvement in certain events, but also to anything that can be detected through the senses, ie: people, inanimate objects, and feelings. The ability to define, categorize, extend knowledge onto other things, and compare are the most fundamental functions. Without these functions, we could not gather knowledge from our experiences, nor could we arrive at any conclusions about their significance. The physical world would ultimately be unintelligible. This leads to the question of how we can understand things that are not in the physical world, like God. Our senses cannot directly experience things outside of this world, therefore we are drastically limited in our ability to know and understand God. The best possible solution is for us to combine our belief in God and our earthly experiences to create a better understanding of God and his qualities. Our experiences of evil are key in the understanding and appreciation of God. Although it is commonly claimed that the existence of evil weakens the assertion that God is omnibenevolent, this is contrary to the truth. Through our ability to extend knowledge to arrive at new truths and our ability to compare experiences, our minds can use the existence of evil to further understand and appreciate God and his omnibenevolence.
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.
(b) If God is were truly omnipotent, he would then be capable of eliminating evil;
The discussion of whether evil exists is dependent on the definition of evil. In the sense of human action, evil can be seen as consciously doing harmful acts. The idea of what constitutes evil is then subjective to what a person perceives as harmful. If a society believes that an act is harmful, then it could be constituted as evil. However, this disparages the idea that evil can be universal, because what is harmful to one person or society may be perfectly acceptable to another. How can it be that the same act is considered both evil and not evil? It may be that in every act, there is a mix between evil, and its counterpart, good.
thereby attempts in the Appendix to argue on the following crucial points: 1) The reason
If God is omniscient, he would know how to make this world the best possible world.
“Inside each of us, there is the seed of both good and evil. It's a constant struggle as to which one will win. And one cannot exist without the other” (Burdon). The concept of good and evil is similar to the existence of god since there also has to be the existence of evil. The existence of God and evil has been discussed by philosophers and people for years over whether they are compatible. The debate is based on how a person interprets the existence of God and evil. In the excerpt, Surprise! It’s Judgment Day from Basic Problems of Philosophy, it involves God and Martin at the gates of heaven and Martin is furious about how God forces people to suffer, but God could require people not to suffer. The debate turns into a theory if God could not create the existence of evil. I was able to determine that the existence