Problem Of Evil Argument Analysis

The question of evil and God 's role in it, or at least the role we believe he should play, has spanned long over time. An ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus pondered the subject during his lifetime:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?". (Slane, 2013) This line of thought remains highly relevant with regards to religious belief due to the things that we see in the world every day. In the following pages, I intend to explain the Problem of Evil argument including the premises that support it, reflect on the theodicy (skeptical objections to the

At a point in Hume 's Dialogues, Dimea claims that someday we "will see the whole connection of general laws, and with adoration trace God 's benevolence and justice through all the mazes and intricacies of his providence" (pg. 7). However, Cleanthes quickly objects to Dimea 's prediction because it is "contrary to visible and unchallenged facts" (pg. 8). In response to the parent analogy, Hume concedes that the Problem of Evil argument does not wholly disprove the existence of God. Though, he does point out that the parent analogy assumes that God exists, which means we require further reasons to believe that he does in order to accept this particular theodicy. He concludes that most "objections seem to be mere fault-finding and trickery; and then we can 't imagine how we could ever give weight to them" (pg. 9). Overall, he decides that the Problem of Evil argument shows it is more logical to believe that God does

In summation, the Problem of Evil most likely provides the best argument against the existence of the God depicted in Western monotheistic religions. The defenders of the Problem of Evil tend to build stronger cases for their side than skeptics do in their theodicies. Arguments for the Problem of Evil are logical; they are not rooted in beliefs. Whereas many of the skeptics ' responses assume the existence of God without proffering a reason to accept such an assumption. Many skeptics also beg the question in their rebuttals. Though this argument cannot be wholly won at this time, given we cannot entirely prove that God does not exist. We can, however, accept that there are inconsistencies. Hume sums up my conclusions nicely: "Nothing can shake the solidity of this reasoning...unless we say that these subjects exceed all human capacity" (pg. 9). In other words, we are given the facts merely by looking at the world and seeing it 's great amounts of evil and pain. The only way, in my opinion, that we are mistaken would be if we are simply unable to grasp the reasoning for it. Or, the more reasonable conclusion, this omniscient, omnipresent, perfectly benevolent God is, quite literally, just too good