Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Strengths of david hume argument in dialogues concerning natural religion
Human argument against religion
David Hume's arguments on God's existence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Problem of Evil
Evil is in the eyes of the beholder, if you are a Theist you believe that evil is wrong and God is all powerful and is able to rid the world of its evil. Though he does not because he gives us the free will to decide whether or not follows the ways of evil. If you view evil as the way David Hume views evil then you believe that since there is evil in the world by evidence then there must not be a God otherwise he would rid the world of the evil and not make people suffer and since he does not then there is no God.
To present the problem of evil you must first know that evil exists. David Hume’s view on the problem of this is to be understood is in the form of undeserved suffering, perpetrated by man and nature, unchallenged victimization of weak by strong, pestilence, war, famine, and other horrors. In the face of this, God is limited in power, goodness, or knowledge or he does not exist at all; that is, either he is incapable or unwilling to remove evil, or he is unaware of its existence or of solutions to it. The problem of evil supposes that God would have no reason for permitting evil that is ultimately to outweigh in significance the negative effects of evil. Hume believes in Natural Religion which looks at the world appeal to the natural world from our senses, this gives much background to why Hume views evil in such a way.
To explain the argument about evil, I am going to use David Hume’s Argument from Evil. The character Philo doesn't deny that what we see in the world is consistent with the existence of a very good and powerful finite God. But he insists that the world we see isn't the sort we would imagine if we came to the universe anew with only the knowledge that such a God created it. That means that we could never infer the existence of such a God from what we see in the world. In fact, Philo says, there are four hypotheses about the causes of the universe: that they are endowed with perfect goodness; that they have perfect malice; that they are opposite and have both goodness and neither malice; that they have neither goodness nor malice.
In David Hume’s essay, Why Does God Let People Suffer, he allows the reader to question if God exists in the world we live in with all the pain and suffering that goes on. Hume suggests that an all powerful God, such as the one most believe in, would not allow a world to exist with this much pain and suffering that goes on daily. Moreover, Hume basically argues that the existence of God is something that cannot be proven in the way in which scientists look for and gather proof about other scientific issues. In the following essay, I will demonstrate how David Hume feels that there is a God despite all the suffering and pain that exists in our world. “Is the World, considered in general, and as it appears to us in this life, different from what a Man or such a limited being would, beforehand, expect from a very powerful, wise, and benevolent Deity?” Additionally, Hume argues for the existence of an omnipotent God. According to the author, a world with this much evil in it, one can’t logically assume that there exists an all powerful God that knows everything. Interestingly, Hume simply argues that we can’t infer that there is a God that exists who is all knowing and all powerful with the tremendous amounts of evil that exists in the world. More importantly, Hume speculates on the creation of the universe. One hypothesis contends that the universe was created without good or malice. In other words, according to Hume, our universe was more likely created by something other than a God with good intentions. However, throughout the essay Hume presents arguments for the existence of God and against the existence of God. Hume further argues that humans would be able to comprehend an omniscient G...
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.
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.
There is evil. 3. So, God does not exist”. Since there is evil, then that means God does not exist.
There are two kinds of evil, moral and natural. Moral evil is things like murder, rape, stealing, terrorism, etc. Natural evil is things like suffering and unpleasantness typically as a result of moral evil. Evil is that which has no power of its own. Evil is darkness, a negation of light. Its power is in us, in our fear of it, in that we consider it a "something" worth responding to.
In the world of the living, evil is not inherent and can change or influence a person’s aspect of the world based on the community they are in. Evil is the force of things that are morally wrong and the matter of suffering, wrongdoing and misfortune (Merriam Webster). Evil is not inherent because an evil community can change or influence a person’s way of thinking, can consume people the more they are relinquished to it, and can mold a person when a person has power or feel a certain way. Furthermore, evil can be claim as not inherent from reading about Josef Mengele, Stanley Milgram, and the Stanford Prison Experiment. I will persuade my point that evil is not inherent from the sources that depicts the claim of evil.
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
God is the source of evil. He created natural evil, and gave humans the ability to do moral evil by giving them a free will. However, had he not given people free will, then their actions would not be good or evil; nor could God reward or punish man for his actions since they had no choice in what to do. Therefore, by giving humans choice and free will, God allowed humanity to decide whether to reward themselves with temporary physical goods, and suffer in the long run from unhappiness, or forsake bodily pleasures for eternal happiness.
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.
Sometimes it is hard to be sure what conclusion to draw from a Humean analysis, and he is easy to misrepresent. This is partly because one argument he is engaged in may raise a number of related issues that he has dealt with elsewhere, and some of his points seem contradictory. My wish is to consider some of the possible readings of David Hume’s critique of causation, as it appears in Section VII of the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, “On Necessary Connexion”, and their relation to the propositions of Section II, “Of the Origin of Ideas”, and Section X, “On Miracles”. I will offer criticisms and alternatives to Hume’s account(s) and conclude by picking which interpretation of Section VII best works for Hume, given certain arguments elsewhere in the Enquiry.
more than evil is capable of what seems to be good. More often in the story, God
To understand evil we must first understand the concept that good and evil are term or words referring to what one given individuals believes to be the right and wrong thing to do. Good, many times symbolized as god or light, is usually associated with an action that many individual see as helping one or many people. This definitions is again very hard to define due to it bias and opinionated nature. But many and most people will agree that good, is what helps not only the common people become a stronger as a community but also become stronger as in...
The Problem of Evil is an argument that highlights the contradiction between the existence of evil and the existence of God. The Problem of Evil basically states that if a perfect being like God existed, then existence of evil should not and is impossible to co-exist with, because such an almighty, all-power God would not allow it to. It is apparent to some people that the existence of evil and suffering itself in our world is the biggest challenge against the belief in the perfect being, higher power, known as God. I believe the Problem of Evil is the best and justifiable argument against the existence of God, because if God was truly all-powerful and omnipotent then he would not allow there to be any evil or suffering. It is the most apparent
This is the understanding of a God which includes moral perfection; a God that simply created the universe and left is not whole enough for most theists (for if this were the real God religious morality would have an unsupportable foundation) (Blackburn, 2001: 169). This is the God of the Abrahamic religions. A God that is all knowing (omniscient) all powerful (omnipotent) and, as emphasized above, all caring or omnibenevolent (Blackburn, 2001: 169). Thus the Problem of Evil arises, as formalised below.