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.
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.
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...
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.
This thesis is shown by John Hick in his article Evil and Soul-Making. As Hick explains, humans already exist in God’s image but have “not yet been formed into the finite likeness of God . . . Man is in the process of becoming the perfected being whom God is seeking to create. However, this is not taking place – it is important to add – by a natural and inevitable evolution, but through a hazardous adventure in individual freedom . . . this involves an accumulation of evil as well as good” (Hick 1-2). In other words, humanity is slowly progressing toward a world in which evil does not exist, as implied by the term “finite likeness of God,” but in order to reach that state, we must first deal with acts of evil, in order to learn what good truly is. On a personal level, this is known as soul-builder
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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...
Another popular argument strongly tied to the mystery of evil revolves around a former Christian, Bart D. Ehrman (2008). Although Ehrman is certainly not the cr...
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 = .