More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on the problem of 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.
This essay provides a conclusive look at the problems and contradictions underlying a belief in God and the observable traits of the world, specifically the Problem of Evil. The analysis will address the nature of God and the existence of evil in the world, as well as objections such as the "sorting" into heaven and hell objection, God's "mysterious ways" objection, the inscrutability of God objection, values presupposing pain objection, inherent contradictions in "God's freewill," and non-human objections. omnipotent. 2) Evil exists. 3) An omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent God would not allow evil to exist. 4) Therefore, God does not exist. This argument has been debated for centuries and has led to various responses from theists, including the idea that evil exists as a result of human free will. However, the Problem of Evil remains a significant challenge to the belief in a morally perfect God.
This is the argument that some values presuppose pain, such as patience and fortitude, requiring deprivation and difficulty to flourish (Blackburn, 2001: 174). However, some people believe they are better off when these virtues are not needed (Blackburn, 2001: 170). For instance, I feel better off when patience is not needed to get my coffee, and surely the coffee shop would not defend their queues by saying patience is a virtue. Moreover, creating suffering for the purpose of teaching these lessons seems evil in and of itself. A rebuttal to this argument could be that the scope was too narrow. For example, the existence of love and hate is possibly a harder example to refute. Firstly, these types of virtues don’t apply to most cases of suffering; a hurricane hardly creates hate. Moreover, it would be difficult to argue that love is contingent on the existence of hate. The feeling of being in love is not caused by a comparison to hate, nor is it taught by any hard ‘life lesson.’
And indeed, suffering, lack of safety, is unavoidable, and also necessary for some things. "When I was downstairs before, on my way here, listening to that woman sing, it struck me all of a sudden how much suffering she must have had to go through. It's repulsive to think you have to suffer that much" (65). But we do. Everyone does. In fact, "There's no way not to suffer" (65). We are never safe from it.
of suffering is most beneficial. However, answering this question about suffering becomes increasingly more difficult with the
In, “The Problem of Evil,” Eleonore Stump holds the belief that the existence of evil in our world does not automatically disprove God’s existence. The belief that God cannot live alongside evil is considered to be the Evidential Problem of evil and this is what Stump is arguing against in her paper. Stump argues, the ability to fix our defective free will makes Union with God possible, which overwrites all the un-absorbable evils in the world, showing both God and un-absorbable evils can coexist. In this paper I hope to show that God can exist, but also show that human free will is limited.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
If God exists and is all-knowing, then there is no evil that God does not know about. If God exists and is morally perfect, then there is no evil that God would permit that He cannot prevent.
“God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world” (Lewis, 1994, p. 91). Throughout history man has had to struggle with the problem of evil. It is one of the greatest problems of the world. Unquestionably, there is no greater challenge to man’s faith then the existence of evil and a suffering world. The problem can be stated simply: If God is an all-knowing and all-loving God, how can He allow evil? If God is so good, how can He allow such bad things to happen?Why does He allow bad things to happen to good people? These are fundamental questions that many Christians and non-Christians set out to answer.
Blackburn, a British academic philosopher believes that the existence of evil strongly suggests that there does not exist a god who is all good, all knowing and all powerful, I agree with Blackburn’s beliefs, that having negativity present causes there to be a close assurance that there is not an existent all positive and sain god. Blackburn begins to question the coexistence of evil while having an AAA god. An AAA god is known to be an all good, all knowing and all powerful god. A god that does, nor causes any harm to occur, one that knows exactly when everything will happen, and one that has all the power to prevent any and every positive or negative thing that occurs. These similar thoughts were the ones that roamed around through Blackburn’s
Suffering can be defined as an experience of discomfort suffered by a person during his life. The New York Times published an article entitled what suffering does, by David Brooks (2014). In this article, Brooks explains how suffering plays an important role in our pursuit of happiness. He explains firstly that happiness is found through experiences and then, suffering can also be a motivation in our pursuit of happiness. In other words, suffering is a fearful but necessary gift to acquire happiness. This paper is related to motivation and emotion, two keys words to the pursuit of happiness (King, 2010).
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.
“All of nature, therefore, is good, since the Creator of all nature is supremely good. But nature is not supremely and immutably good as is the Creator of it” (Enchiridion, St. Augustine). It has been argued that the existence of evil in the world is the result of a non-existent God. If there were a God, He would not allow the suffering of the people or for malicious acts to take place. On the contrary, there are those who say that God is present through all things; therefore he is omnipotent and omniscient. The following essay will discuss both arguments for the claim of whether or not evil or suffering in the world is compatible with the conception of an omnipotent and good God.
We have an all-powerful, perfect God and yet he created imperfection, a force that might work against his power (the force of evil) and that seems illogical to many people. But what we do know is that there is definite evil in the world, we know people sin. The two logically don’t seem to be able to exist at the same time. Therefore, if there is evil in the world, that proves that a perfect God doesn't exist because a perfect wouldn't create evil.