Richard Swinburne's Problem Of Evil

This paper examines the problem of evil. The plan of the paper is as follows. First, I will explain the problem of evil. Second, I will present the reasons that support and defend the problem of evil argument’s premises. Third, I will discuss the criticisms of the problem of evil. Finally, I will evaluate the debate, specifically what is right and wrong with the criticisms and whether the problem of evil survives the criticisms discussed.

Evil exists everywhere in the world. There are two broad types of evil. The first is moral evil. Moral evil is an intentional act of evil, usually committed by human beings. Some examples of moral evil would be war, murder, theft, and rape. The second is natural evil. Natural evils are pain and suffering caused

Richard Swinburne’s critical response to the problem of evil argument is the free will defense argument. According to the 1996 reading, "Why God Allows Evil," by Swinburne, he claims that because God gave us free will, our choice to choose, good and evil must be present. If we could only choose good, it would not be free will. In Swinburne’s free will defense, he emphasizes significant freedom, significant responsibility, and the usefulness of life. Swinburne defines significant responsibility as having responsibility for the trajectories of our own lives, the lives of others, and our world. In addition, he defines significant freedom as having the freedom to help or harm ourselves, other humans, animals, and our world. Our world consists of beings who have significant freedom and responsibility. Because we have significant freedom and responsibility, we are able to find the purpose of life.

Furthermore, Swinburne explains that God allows moral evil because it is impossible to eliminate moral evil while being given significant responsibility and freedom. If there was no moral evil, we would not know the dire consequences of our actions. Swinburne notes that God cannot predict the future because we have significant freedom to do what we choose to do. God allows natural evil because it demonstrates the laws of nature. For example, polluting the Earth has consequences. Through nature, God naturally

According to the April 1995 reading, "Evil and Omnipotence," John Leslie Mackie believes that an all-good God does not exist because if there was an all-good God, then the presence of evil would be impossible. He indicates that if God was good, then he could have created a world where no matter what decision we made, we would always make a morally right decision.

The debate about the problem of evil can be examined more closely. I think Swinburne’s free will defense survives Mackie’s criticism of the free will defense. This is because there must be evil to know good. If there was no evil, how would we know what good is? Free will is the greater good. According to Mackie’s criticism, if God was truly almighty, he could have created a world where free-willed people would always choose the right action. I disagree with this because free will means being able to choose whether one will be good or bad. If we were programmed to always choose good, we would not have free will.

God cannot prevent creatures who have significant freedom from doing evil because then we would lose our strong inclination to do what is wrong or right. If we lose significant freedom, we lose significant responsibility. If God interferes and fixes everything, we wouldn’t live responsibly. We could give up on life because our choices don't