Since God made us in His image, shouldn’t we have some part of us, however small, that is incorruptibly good? He puts the blame of evil on our free will. This means that God was not the creator of evil and could be both wholly good and omnipotent. Augustine also addresses the problem of bad things happening to innocent people. All of his arguments seem valid to me.
His solutions to the problem of evil seem more reliable and he provides more evidence to support his argument. Malebranche’s claim that evil is a bi-product of the laws God has set in place doesn’t seem plausible to me. So in conclusion, I find that Leibniz’s solution to the problem of evil to be more plausible and that this world is the best possible world that God could have created. Works Cited Leibniz, Gottfried. Essays on the Justice of God and the Freedom of Man in the Origins of Evil.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE The primary... ... middle of paper ... ... case in the present world in which we know given certain conditions person A would hypothetically engage in a morally evil action. It would no be impossible for God to create a world that were almost identical the present world, except that the person would then not engage in the evil. Since, to do so would deny him the freedom of individuality and his personality. That is, for God to ensure that he not engage in the evil would deny his freedom. The only other solution is for God to not create the world at all.
It wouldn’t make sense to favor up over down or vice versa as one could do with good and evil. Also, even if it were true that evil is necessary for us to conceive of good, we would only need a very small amount. And it wouldn’t seem right to say that very little evil exists in the world. 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.
The Problem of Evil presents itself as a weak argument against the belief in God. With the ability to attribute evil and its existence to multiple causes such as soul-building evil and to free will, an omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent God can coexist with evil. The power of control, the knowledge of its existence and how to act for ultimate utility and the good nature of freedom, reasons why God can hold its acclaimed title as a “PKG” being.
Cleanthes observed that the world had an order to it, and that it must be attributed to a purposeful backing. Cleanthes stressed the importance of the anthropomorphizing of God through that it was the only way we could become closer to him and celebrate his greatness. He argued that Demea’s God was too un-relatable to humanity and that nobody would worship him. Cleanthes solved for the problem of evil by pointing out that there is much more good than evil in the world. Cleanthes said that Philo and Demea were overexaggerating on the amount of evil, and that goodness heavily outweighed evil, proving that God does exist with his triad of
His main justification is that this is “the best of all possible worlds” because if it weren’t, evil would exist in a much greater, powerful form and a benevolent god is free to create “any possible world he pleased.” He also argues that creating the world (universe) with the least amount of evil is a moral obligation that a perfect god would need to abide by, because anything less would make god evil (to an extent). That being said, Leibniz doesn’t completely reject the concept of evil existing and thinks it is beneficial for the universe to contain evil because of “Th... ... middle of paper ... ...plain why evil exists if god is all knowing, all good and benevolent. A benevolent god should be more than capable of creating morally sound humans (and animals) who wouldn’t need a bigger picture to appreciate the good and remain moral. My only criticism of Hume is that his arguments are not necessarily timeless. We are not as limited as we used to be and we continue to thrive everyday, however that is expected of Hume since he hadn’t experienced the medical and scientific strides achieved over the years and knowledge must first be experienced.
An enjoyable yet short and to the point argument of Gods existence the author captures the attention of the reader and does a great job of defending his claim that evil points to the existence of God. Through strong logical argumentation, presented evidence and showing how evil supporting atheism is a weak defense Ganssle does not appear to show inconsistency in his work. Evil as Evidence for Christianity begins by giving a scenario that explains the use of and substantiation of evidence. Evidence being a fact that supports a truth claim. Although weather the claim itself may or may not represents truth it does point toward the direction of truth.
In order for a theist to keep their beliefs in an STN God they must find a way to solve the problem of evil by using a theodicy (103).1 Or they can change their beliefs so that they no longer believe in an STN God, but just a God (108).1 The ontological defense appears to be the most successful theodicy at solving the problem of evil. This defense essentially says that it is impossible for good to exist in the world without evil. The ontological defense is the strongest defense because it merely puts forth the concept of opposites and does not try to explain any other reasoning for why evil exists or why God puts evil in the world.
God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, which makes us wonder what kind of morally sufficient reason justifies God to allow evil. We know that evil exists in our world, but so does God, so would God be the source of evil as well as good? We have established that God is the omnipotent and benevolent free creator of the world, but suffering and evil exist. Is God unable to prevent evil? If so, he would not be omnipotent.