“Do you see this son, it’s all madness out there. I just don’t understand why God lets this happens.” As my mother watches the 11 pm news on a cold rainy night, most of the coverage is about evil acts and how it’s affecting the community of Los Angles. Thus, it raises the question of why a God who is omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent would allow evil and suffering to exist in the world. This paper explores the argument of the problem of evil conflicts with the existence of God from two different points of view, criticism of one point of view, and evaluation of the argument.
Understanding the argument of the problem of evil and God is important to capture. Part of the question originates from the metaphysics (the study of the fundamental
…show more content…
In the article, Mackie states how it is “a problem only for someone who believes that there is a God who is both omnipotent and wholly good”. In order words, it could be an internal problem because having that belief will question one person’s thoughts of God compared to someone who believes otherwise. However, Mackie does see the flaw of the argument and offers a reasonable response which is agreeing with the pope’s statement about how “partial evil is universal good”. Meaning that it’s okay that the world has some form of evil examples such as sickness or pain from giving birth. However, the pope’s statement also arises another flaw which is that isn’t a stable answer due to how even if there is so little evil, it is still evil (Mackie). Thus, concludes his article with there isn’t a proper response since the solution demeans God's existence by admitting that God isn't powerful or …show more content…
In moral evil, the first type, he mentions that he believes in the free-will defense. The free-will defense as he states is having a “free and responsible choice, but that, if they do, then necessarily there will be the natural possibility of moral evil”. To illustrate what it is, perhaps a man finds a wallet with money and has a choice of returning the wallet of money, keeping it, or keeping the money and returning the wallet. Showcasing that humans have a range of choices they can make and with those choices, evil can occur. However, it brings the question of how God becomes involved with the free-will defense. Swinburne states that God doesn’t control whether evil occurs rather is “ like a good father, will delegate responsibility” and that humans are like the older brother taking care of the younger brother (91). The second kind of evil, natural evil isn’t the same as moral evil. Swinburne states that “its main role rather, I suggest, is to make it possible for humans to have the kind of choice which the free-will defense extols”. This means that for the main argument for the free-will defense to be possible, there has to be an earth to exist which it does. How natural evil works in two primary ways beginning with natural laws. Importantly, natural laws produce evils that help give humans knowledge that can