Evil and Human Nature

If He was righteous, He would stop the evil from occurring Therefore, the existence of evil cannot be compatible with the existence of this type of God. The primary response to the argument from evil is the appeal to human freedom. This argument states that God sees evil as necessary so that we humans may be free to choose our own path. The fatal flaw in this argument is that there are evils that exist not as a direct result of human choice. Natural evils such as floods, earthquakes, and tornadoes serve no purpose according to this definition, and are therefore unnecessary evils.

Gelinas introduces his examination of the arguments from natural evil and their replies by noticing that an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good being existing in concurrence with the existence of evil appears to be a contradiction. He goes on to state that this inconsistency seems to many to be justifiable in favour of theism through free-will. Free-will dictates that I have the choice of doing wrong or right, and since free-will entails the uncertainty of what I choose to do, God cannot be held accountable for the evil that arises from exercising free-will (Gelinas 2009, p. 533). However, Gelinas points out that the evil that free-will accounts for is moral evil that comes from the human capability to exercise free-will; free-will does not account for the natural evil that arises from processes found in nature. One reply to this criticism of theism that Gelinas discusses is the argument developed by Swinburne.

Since God is the being to which the Problem of Evil poses the greatest problem, perhaps the definition of God can be altered to allow evil. This does not work for several reasons. First, the Cosmological Argument only proves one definition of God. By changing the definition of God there is no longer any point to the matter because the Cosmological Argument and thus the Problem of Evil become irrelev... ... middle of paper ... ...ems to follow that he was bound to act as he did.” (Ayer 481) Compatibilism proves that free will and Determinism are compatible and specifically that Determinism cannot be used to disprove free will because free will is inherently determined. Though there is some debate as to the existence of God, the matter has not been sufficiently proven one way or the other.

While Philo agreed with Demea that it is apparent that there is evil in the world, he disagreed in that Gods nature is impossible to know. Like Cleanthes, he agreed that God’s attributes can be derived empirically, however he disagreed in that he said that God cannot have his triad of attributes while evil is existent. Philo said that while there may be more good than evil, the fact that there is any evil in the world indicates that God is contradicting his triad. So, Philo concluded that while it is evident God exists through his necessity of being the prime mover, and while his attributes can be derived empirically through observations of nature, it is evident that he is lacking one of the supposed attributes. Philo says that for God to exist he must not be anthropomorphized; God is blind to good and evil, he is an indifferent prime mover.

He explains that the only way to defend divine benevolence is to oppose the evils that are sent upon us humans. Demea attempts to prove that good occurs more than the bad but we tend to focus and put emphasis on the evil more. Philo comes back saying if he allows what Cleanthes said to be true with their being less bad than good than Cleanthes must also admit that the evils that humans suffer through is still forevermore worse than the good. It is much... ... middle of paper ... ...no cause to believe that one could. If the character chooses to believe that a God exists than they are only creating an irrational and inconsistent argument.

Evil can be categorized into two forms, moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil is brought about by bad choices that stem from our free will. Natural evil is bad things that happen to people, whether they deserve them or not. The problem with evil is, “Either we must say that God is not wholly good, and that he permits or is even the author of evil. Or we must say that God is not omnipotent, and although he is wholly good and would prevent evil if he could, he is powerless to stop it.” (Fitzgerald 340).

The definition of evil is suffering that is extreme, preventable, and futile. Before discussing the problem of evil more in-depth, it is important to know the two different types of evil. First, there is natural evil. As its name implies, natural evil occurs in nature, such as volcanoes or tsunamis that can cause widespread pain and suffering. Natural evil is not caused by humans directly, and is often blamed on God.

(Reason and Responsibility, 108) Omnipotence meaning able to bring about anything that is not a contradiction and moral perfection meaning never – not even once- doing something that is morally unacceptable. (Reason and Responsibility, 108) Inwagen’s objective in the essay, The Argument from Evil, is to present a “defense” against the problem of evil. Inwagen’s defense is not trying to prove he knows the reason why evil exists; rather, only to show that there may be “a very real possibility” that God has a morally acceptable reason for allowing evil to exist. (Reason and Responsibility, 109) Inwagen’s reasoning behind this is as follows; from the premises of the problem of evil the conclusion, God does not exist, does not necessary follow because He may have a morally acceptable reason for allowing evil to exist. Inwagen makes a case for the above reasoning by using an analogy that shows human do not always act on their wants, that they are able to bring about, because they have reasons not to and this can be extrapolated to God.

Evodius holds the position: “The existence of a good, all knowing (omniscient), and all-powerful (omnipotent) God is contradicted by our experience of evil in the world. It makes sense to conclude that God does not exist.” (Bwanali). As a response, Augustine asserts that the evil that we experience is just a lack of goodn... ... middle of paper ... ... good and is not the reason for evil are the ones that will live happy, faithful lives. All in all, the problem of evil has been debated for thousands of years. Some believe that evil is caused by Satan and not humanity, such as the Manichaeanists and Bogomilists, and some believe that humans are the cause of evil, rather than God, such as Augustine, Peter Kreefe, and myself.

Evil is said to come from the free actions of human beings. God can’t do what’s logically impossible and it’s said to be logically impossible for God to create humans who are free but always choose to do what’s right. This therefore takes the responsibility of evil from God. Omniscience means knowing everything that it is logically possible to know. If God knows everything it is not possible for him to think of something he does not know.