Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Why do bad things happen to good people
Arguments against charles darwins theory of evolution
Both moral and natural evil
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Why do bad things happen to good people
Suffering and pain are all around us. The world is filled with famines, wars and diseases. Evil is a part of everyday life. Some of these evils are due to man’s own inhumanity (moral evils), while others seem to have no reasons for occurring (natural evils). At times it seems as if it is too much to bear and people begin to question the evil in the world. The problem of evil leads people to question the existence of God. Surely if there was a loving and all powerful God, there would be no evil. Why would a God who loves His people allow so much pain and suffering to occur? According to Moreland and Craig, “The greatest intellectual obstacle to belief in God is the so-called problem of evil (Moreland and Craig 536).” This paper will look at the logical argument for evil and the Christian’s response to the argument. The logical problem of evil was formed as a way to question certain characteristics of God. The argument puts to test God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence. H.J. McCloskey wrote, “Evil is a problem, for the theist, in that a contradiction is involved in the fact of evil on the one hand and belief in the omnipotence and omniscience of God on the other (Beebe).” …show more content…
(LPE5) Therefore, Christian theism is false (Merchant, 78).” The standard logical problem of evil brings God’s omnipotence into question, yet atheists have modified the logical problem of evil so that it also brings into question God’s omnibenevolence and even His omniscience. The modified logical problem of evil is as followed:
“(LPE1) According to Christian theism, God is perfectly good and, thus, wills to prevent evil.
(LPE6) According to Christian theism, God is all-knowing and, thus, foreknew that evil would exist.
(LPE7) Therefore, according to Christian theism, God wouldn’t freely create this world.
(LPE8) But, according to Christian theism, God freely created this world.
(LPE5) Therefore, Christian theism is false (Merchant,
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bad things are bound to happen; it’s just a matter of when. I agree with his particular view on this matter, “Some are caused by bad luck. Some are caused by bad people, and others are silly an inevitable consequence of our being human and being mortal, living in a world of flexible natural laws” (pg.134). I believe the presence of God does not change the existence of good or evil, but may influence humans to have great faith, and therefore act accordingly. I do think people abandon their faith because of the problem with evil than for any other reason.
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
For how could God have enough power and knowledge to create and sustain the physical universe if He can 't even prevent evil? How could He be the providential governor of the world if He is unable to do what even we frequently do, namely prevent evil?” (5). This statement argues that God is not all powerful because he is unable to prevent evil in the world. Daniel Howard-Snyder then argues that: “Would a perfectly good being always prevent evil as far as he can?
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.
My claim that we have evil in this world because of our libertarian freedom does not fully answer the notion of “the problem of evil”. Saying we have evil in this world is just like saying we have bad decisions in this world. Bad decisions just like evil do not have a form. Every decision that God makes is a good decision therefore God cannot do evil. Human beings initiated evil. In fact, the first human beings (Adam and Eve) gave ongoing birth to evil because everyone ultimately came from them. So everyone after Adam and Eve is inherently evil. This idea is evident in our lives because every human being has committed evil. The ultimate problem is not how an all-powerful God can exist while evil exist, the ultimate dilemma is how a holy God can accept human beings that are not holy. Stephen T. Davis in “Free Will and Evil” writes, “All the moral evil that exists in the world is due to the choices of free moral agents whom God created” (Davis). Davis argues that free will is the answer to the problem of evil. This is consistent with my view that evil exists because of our libertarian freedom. Unlike Hick, Davis is consistent with my answer for evil and he is also consistent with how evil is solved in regards to heaven and hell. Davis states, “I do believe hell exists, but I do not hold that it is a place where protesting people are led against their will to be tortured vengefully. I believe that the people who will end up separated from God freely choose hell and would be unhappy in God’s presence. Having lived their lives apart from God, they will choose eternally—to go on doing so. So it is not a bad thing that they do not spend eternity in the presence of God. People who will prove to be incorrigibly evil will never come to th...
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.
How can a good God be good, yet there is evil in the world? This has been one of the oldest challenges that atheists have used to confront theist to be true to themselves. The implications of God’s character of Omniscient (all- knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and benevolent, has been put to test by the atheist. They challenge the theist and say that if He exists then, he knows how to, want to and has the ability to stop all sufferings. These arguments are genuine and serious one.
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.
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
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:
He adds that without absolute proofs, people ought to dismiss the idea that there is an omniscient and omnipotent being. He argues that the major pointer to God’s non-existence is the presence of evil in the world. In this paper, the author will attempt to counter the arguments