Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Why do bad things happen to good people
Arguments against charles darwins theory of evolution
Both moral and natural evil
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Why do bad things happen to good people
Suffering and pain are all around us. The world is filled with famines, wars and diseases. Evil is a part of everyday life. Some of these evils are due to man’s own inhumanity (moral evils), while others seem to have no reasons for occurring (natural evils). At times it seems as if it is too much to bear and people begin to question the evil in the world. The problem of evil leads people to question the existence of God. Surely if there was a loving and all powerful God, there would be no evil. Why would a God who loves His people allow so much pain and suffering to occur? According to Moreland and Craig, “The greatest intellectual obstacle to belief in God is the so-called problem of evil (Moreland and Craig 536).” This paper will look at the logical argument for evil and the Christian’s response to the argument. The logical problem of evil was formed as a way to question certain characteristics of God. The argument puts to test God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence. H.J. McCloskey wrote, “Evil is a problem, for the theist, in that a contradiction is involved in the fact of evil on the one hand and belief in the omnipotence and omniscience of God on the other (Beebe).” …show more content…
(LPE5) Therefore, Christian theism is false (Merchant, 78).” The standard logical problem of evil brings God’s omnipotence into question, yet atheists have modified the logical problem of evil so that it also brings into question God’s omnibenevolence and even His omniscience. The modified logical problem of evil is as followed:
“(LPE1) According to Christian theism, God is perfectly good and, thus, wills to prevent evil.
(LPE6) According to Christian theism, God is all-knowing and, thus, foreknew that evil would exist.
(LPE7) Therefore, according to Christian theism, God wouldn’t freely create this world.
(LPE8) But, according to Christian theism, God freely created this world.
(LPE5) Therefore, Christian theism is false (Merchant,
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 deductive a priori argument who’s goal is to prove the non-existence of God. In addition to Mackie’s three main premises he also introduces some “quasi-logical” rules that give further evidence to his argument. First he presumes that a good thing will eliminate evil to the extent that it can and second, that omnipotence has no limits. From these two “additional premises,” it can be concluded that a completely good and omnipotent being will eliminate all possible evil. After establishing these added premises Mackie continues with his piece to list and negate several theistic responses to the argument.
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 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 Problem of Evil assumes that all of these qualifications are true and valid. The Problem of Evil is as follows: 1. If God exists, then there is no evil. This assumes the opposite is true also; if evil exists, then there is no God. 2. Evil exists. Whether in the form of some other being, such a Satan, or the actions of other humans or living things, evil exists. People perform cruel, heinous, unnecessary actions. People murder other people. They kill animals; they lie, steal, and cheat. Evil is all around is. 3. Since evil exists, a PKM god does not
J.L Mackie’s IV. - Evil and Omnipotence presents us with the problem of believing in a God who is both Omnipotent as well as wholly good. The conflict presents that if God is both omnipotent and wholly good, then how can evil still exist? If being good means eliminating evil and omnipotent as having no limits as to what it can do, then being a good omnipotent God cannot exist in this world. The problem with evil is that evil cannot coexist if we have an omnipotent wholly good God.
In his work, Evil and Omnipotence, J. L. Mackie attempts to point out the faults in the belief of an existence of God. His arguments are primarily centered around the idea of how evil existing within this world contradicts the theist belief that God is all powerful. Mackie argues off the basic premises surrounding the theist’s idea of God’s omnipotence, benevolence, as well as the evil existing. He also himself adds two additional premises one that good is opposed to evil and that omnipotent beings have unlimited power. Mackie argues that if God is omnipotent than he should have been able to create humans free and unerring, eliminating evil from the world. I believe that this can be argued otherwise due to the fact that God could indeed be omnipotent while still allowing evil to exist. I will argue that alternative arguments given by the theist, that God can have humans who are free and erring while
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.
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
How can a good God be good, yet there is evil in the world? This has been one of the oldest challenges that atheists have used to confront theist to be true to themselves. The implications of God’s character of Omniscient (all- knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and benevolent, has been put to test by the atheist. They challenge the theist and say that if He exists then, he knows how to, want to and has the ability to stop all sufferings. These arguments are genuine and serious one.
Evil exists. This bizarre conundrum has perplexed philosophers since the dawn of civilization, and remains in hot debate today because of the theological implications inherent in the statement. To many on this planet, the source of life is an all-loving, all-powerful, omniscient god who created the universe – and all the laws therein – in seven days, as described in the Bible. And yet still, evil exists. How can these two premises be simultaneously true? Surely, an all-loving god would want to do something about this problem, and an all-powerful god could absolutely remedy a situation if it so desired. It seems as though the common perception of the Bible’s god is inaccurate. However, it could be argued that the Bible’s god is accurate, and that said perception is somewhat skewed, considering that on numerous occasions, God claims responsibility for evil. “I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7). The Greek philosopher Epicurus put the Good God’s Evil puzzle in a very clear logical progression:
He adds that without absolute proofs, people ought to dismiss the idea that there is an omniscient and omnipotent being. He argues that the major pointer to God’s non-existence is the presence of evil in the world. In this paper, the author will attempt to counter the arguments