As a Christian theist, I do not find it feasible to claim that the existence of moral and natural evil make God’s existence improbable for the same reason that the existence of good things do not disprove the existence of God. For this reason, I claim that the mere existence of evil and good, if justified, makes God’s existence genuine. In other words, if God has logical reason to allow the evil to happen then it is fully logical for evil and God to co-exist. But for the sake purpose of argument, seeing how moral evil can be justified by free will and leaves natural evil as the only reasonable factor for God’s existence being improbable, this argument will focus on justifying natural evil. Many philosophers define natural evil as evils of nature …show more content…
II. If God is “all-loving”, “all-good”, and “all-powerful” then the presence of evil discredits the existence of God and it’s illogical to claim that it proves it. In addition, lets assume that in fact the presence of moral evil can be justified by free will. The presence of evil does not make God “all-loving” and “all-good” because out of the natural evils sprouts suffering, suffering which cannot be justified. Touching on point “b” from section I, theists will claim that out of the evil and suffering will come a greater good. What “greater out-weighting good” can evolve out of 200,000 lives of individuals being stripped from by a tsunami in the Indian Ocean? Or plagues like the Black Plague, which killed an average of 135.7 million individuals? Or earthquakes that have take the lives of millions? Or even worst, an innocent child born with genetic disease? And …show more content…
Theists can assume that the result of a greater good is “it promotes spiritual growth by helping others”, but seeing how most natural evils do not come close to giving a spiritual growth result, it cannot justify natural evil. Theists will also claim that natural evil is the result of sin, but what sin has a newborn child, in such a small time frame of being on earth, committed to deserve a genetic disease. Assuming that natural evil promotes spiritual growth, natural evil is unnecessary and it is taken to an excessive extent because moral evil is enough to produce moral characters for spiritual growth. Now, touching on point “b” from section I, one cannot justify and “conclude” that natural evils are part of God’s created natural framework and are uncontrollable consequences of natural laws unless one can prove that God is responsible for the creation of such “natural framework.” And we cannot come to the conclusion that God created such natural framework unless we prove that God created the universe. But for the
“God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world” (Lewis, 1994, p. 91). Throughout history man has had to struggle with the problem of evil. It is one of the greatest problems of the world. Unquestionably, there is no greater challenge to man’s faith then the existence of evil and a suffering world. The problem can be stated simply: If God is an all-knowing and all-loving God, how can He allow evil? If God is so good, how can He allow such bad things to happen?Why does He allow bad things to happen to good people? These are fundamental questions that many Christians and non-Christians set out to answer.
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.
In this paper, I will use the writings of John Hick and Richard Swinburne to dispute the problem of evil argument. After I first elaborate on the P.O.E., I will give support for God’s existence with regards to the problem of evil. Then, I will address further counterarguments
The problem of evil is a deductive a priori argument who’s goal is to prove the non-existence of God. In addition to Mackie’s three main premises he also introduces some “quasi-logical” rules that give further evidence to his argument. First he presumes that a good thing will eliminate evil to the extent that it can and second, that omnipotence has no limits. From these two “additional premises,” it can be concluded that a completely good and omnipotent being will eliminate all possible evil. After establishing these added premises Mackie continues with his piece to list and negate several theistic responses to the argument.
If god was all good, all powerful and all knowing, he would not allow the existence of evil.
...e confirmation to his contentions. From the verifications gave by theists, it is clear they include and are incongruence with one another. On the first contention, he realizes that a maker existed by belligerence it is dislodged by development. This may not be genuine as indicated by the illustration given and also the way that everything that exists needs to have had a beginning. The reasons can't be endless, important there was a cause that was autonomous and not created by an alternate reason.
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. I am not saying people would not get their fair share of misfortune now and again, but they would never experience evil, pain or suffering. That being said, there would be no evil or vindictive people in this world
...mpossibility for an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good God to exist in a universe where evil exists. The qualities in question are categorical, omnipotence, omniscience and being perfectly good, and the only way to account for the existence of evil is to limit in some way one of the categorical characteristics. What this does is change the quality of omnipotence to the lesser quality of extremely powerful. And in admitting any restrictions to any of the classical attributes of God is to admit that the logical impossibility is in fact valid. What a person needs to do is examine the problem objectively first, and only after reaching their objective conclusion can they then apply it to their religious beliefs.
If God exists and is all-knowing, then there is no evil that God does not know about. If God exists and is morally perfect, then there is no evil that God would permit that He cannot prevent.
The simultaneous presence of evil and God has been an ongoing debate for a long time. Evil is defined as being morally wrong and by definition, God is the supreme; he is morally perfect and has the power to control everything and everyone. He should then be able to prevent evil from existing or get rid of the evil that does exist, but this is not the case. The question that arises, is if there is a God and he is morally perfect, why does God allow for evil in the world if? The problem is that there is no straightforward answer to this question. Or as some philosophers argue, this is only a problem for those who believe in God and that God is morally perfect and omnipotent (J.L Mackie).
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.
If there is truly a God and the maker of this universe did create human beings, then in this perfect world that this perfect God made, I do not just see God’s wholly good but also the bad and ugly. God must not be omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent then and the definition of God is false and the existence of God
Evil exists. This bizarre conundrum has perplexed philosophers since the dawn of civilization, and remains in hot debate today because of the theological implications inherent in the statement. To many on this planet, the source of life is an all-loving, all-powerful, omniscient god who created the universe – and all the laws therein – in seven days, as described in the Bible. And yet still, evil exists. How can these two premises be simultaneously true? Surely, an all-loving god would want to do something about this problem, and an all-powerful god could absolutely remedy a situation if it so desired. It seems as though the common perception of the Bible’s god is inaccurate. However, it could be argued that the Bible’s god is accurate, and that said perception is somewhat skewed, considering that on numerous occasions, God claims responsibility for evil. “I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7). The Greek philosopher Epicurus put the Good God’s Evil puzzle in a very clear logical progression:
An omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent God would not allow evil to exist. 4) Therefore, God does not exist. This argument has been debated for centuries and has led to various responses from theists, including the idea that evil exists as a result of human free will. However, the Problem of Evil remains a significant challenge to the belief in a morally perfect God.
Good versus evil is an eternal struggle, conflict, war, or a unification. Good exists while evil does as well, this is because without evil, there can be no such thing as good, and without good, there can also be no evil. The question exists that if there is an all-good & powerful God who is omniscient; omnipotent; omni-benevolent; then how can evil exist within such absolute terms?