Deductive Problem Of Evil Essay

The Deductive Problem of Evil

One of the major philosophical debates concerning God's existence involves the problem of evil. The problem has two basic formulations, one is deductive, the other inductive. The deductive form of the problem asks the following: Is the existence of evil logically compatible with a necessarily benevolent and necessarily omnipotent being? One of the philosophers who discusses the problem is Richard Gale. I will begin this essay by outlining the deductive problem of evil according to Gale. I will then try to refute the deductive argument and prove that the existence of evil is indeed logically compatible with a benevolent and omnipotent being. A conclusion will then follow.

The deductive argument has been around since the time of Epicurus.1 In its simplest form, the problem is stated as follows:

1. God is omnipotent

2. God is wholly good

3. Evil exists

Proponents of the argument believe the set of propositions is logically inconsistent, i.e. that at least one proposition must be false. This basic

One of the ways to refute a deductive argument is to prove that what is alleged as evidence is mistaken. This applies especially to the deductive argument of evil. In order for premise 42 to work, we must be convinced that there exists more evil than is necessary. But this is certainly not self-evident. If fact, even those theists who admit to the existence of evil would never accept that more evil exists than is necessary. In this case, the evidence presented in the deductive argument is implausible (as we shall discuss later). The real problem is that, with the reformulation of premise 3 - from "evil exists" to "more evil exists than is necessary" the nature of the argument has changed. The deductive argument has become evidential. It now rests on identifying the amount of evil in the universe, not on proving that God and evil are logically