ipl-logo

The Logical Argument Regarding The Problem Of Evil

1284 Words6 Pages

The logical argument concerning the problem of evil stems from two propositions that seem difficult to hold true at the same time: there exists an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God and there are great amounts of suffering and evil in the world. This argument concludes that since there is moral and natural evil in the world, that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God cannot exist since an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God would not create evil, or would at least seek to destroy it. To argue against this, the free-will defense is used. The free-will defense is successful as it provides a reason for moral evil, but it fails to address natural evil. However, it is still logically consistent to believe in …show more content…

Free-will is arguably the greater good; we would not be humans without it and we would not be a good creation without choice over our own actions. In protection of that greater good, God does not, and should not, get involved in dealing with moral evil and the suffering caused by it. Doing so would subvert our free-will, and ultimately take away our free-will. Since we have the choice whether to do good or evil, God should not be blamed for the actions that humans make. Following from this, God can still be omniscient (God knows that there is evil in the world), omnipotent (God has the ability to stop evil) and omnibenevolent (God does not want evil to exist, but ultimately allows it for our ability to have free-will). The free-will defense is successful as it accounts for moral evil such as slavery, war, torture, genocides, etc., and since we have free-will and we are ultimately responsible for our actions, whether they are good or evil, there is no logical reason to blame God for the actions of …show more content…

Natural evil is not man-made, comes through no fault of our own, and is caused by outward, worldly forces; so an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God would have no need to create natural evil. Tornadoes, earthquakes, diseases, etc. would be natural evils since they are not created by moral or immoral actions. According to the deist conception of God, God set the universe in motion and has not interfered since creation. It is then possible, that since God has not intervened in the world since the creation, that all of these things could have come through natural evolution and changes in climate and weather patterns. If God is not seen as a proximal cause for these events, and is instead viewed as a creator who set the universe in motion to be governed by natural laws and things like evolution, then it seems illogical to blame God for these types of events that follow natural law. Also, a most natural disasters have benefits to them: hurricanes replenish barrier reefs and help ocean productivity, floods bring nutrients to soil, causing it to be more fertile, and lightning helps maintain the Earth’s electrical balance. So, despite that some of these events may bring about pain and suffering, they could also have an, arguably, greater good to them as

Show More
Related
979 Words | 4 Pages

The only thing responsible for evil is the human being. Throughout the whole book, the author struggles with understanding how God could watch the evil taking place. The author loses of his faith, which causes the reader to also question God presence in this tragedy of human events: World War

Read More
819 Words | 4 Pages

Philo concludes that for those who already believe in an omnipotent and all-good god, these four causes are not enough to invalidate their beliefs. INSERT CITATION He says this because all four of his causes can be dispelled under the assumption that there is some divine explanation that reconciles god’s goodness with the evil in the world. However, coming from an unbiased perspective, Philo says that we certainly cannot infer the existence of a benevolent god when these causes of natural evil are taken into account. In fact, if we do attempt to divulge god’s moral attributes from the state of the universe, then Philo concludes that the only proper deduction we can draw is that god is neither good nor is he evil, but rather he is entirely indifferent to the principles of morality altogether – in essence, god is morally neutral.

Read More
1292 Words | 6 Pages

There is a reason for our world to have suffering since it is built into the structure of the world. That reason, Hick argues, is for “soul-making”, or character building (129). Without having some suffering, then there would be no characters, such as courage. The higher morality of God relates back to that because He has a legitimacy for that suffering. Here, I agree with Hick.

Read More
933 Words | 4 Pages

Questioning if God is not omnipotent, the entire idea of God creating the world can be called into question. Another issue is that if it is said that God is no longer entirely good there is the possibility to say that God has evil or bad intentions, and we should denounce him. Lastly, if one says that evil does not exist, then there is no possible way to separate those people who are considered to be deviants of society. This would mean that those who commit crimes that are evil in nature like murder and rape would be considered to be normal and acceptable.

Read More
893 Words | 4 Pages

Theorists opposing this argument hold that morality is not dependent on the will of God. These theorists limit God’s omnipotence is stating clearly that he cannot make what is wrong, right. The theorists then suggest that God has to bend His will to conform to what is right. They hold that God wills what is morally right because it is right. In this argument, I take the stand that morality is what God wills it to

Read More
1216 Words | 5 Pages

“The freewill defense simply gets the moral facts wrong” (4). Again, freewill is just there, it exists and it is not supposed to get anything right or

Read More
1006 Words | 5 Pages

There are two main ways in which natural evil operates to give humans those choices. First of all, natural evil provides chance for humans to learn how to bring the evil. For example, I can choose to ignore my sick friends instead of showing compassion towards the sufferer. If I get sick, I can either choose to spread it to others or subdue to disease and prevent it from spreading. Humans have the free will to choose to be good or evil.

Read More
1089 Words | 5 Pages

This logical incompatibility between evil and God’s actuality can be made evident in two additional principles provided by Mackie. These are if something is omnipotent, it can do anything and if something is omnibenevolent it will eliminate as much evil as possible. Mackie claims God’s omnipotent characteristic is dependent on him being all powerful. If God is omnipotent than the subjection to limitations, such as the inevitability of evil, should not arise. This first premise is in relation to the second and third because if God is all powerful, wholly good and in existence, the product of his work, our world, should be a reflection of his being.

Read More
1634 Words | 7 Pages

Not only that, good and evil are also based on moral. The article Good and Evil (Theme in Children's Literature) talks about the morally evil. “Moral evil therefore depends on the choice of each free-willed person, that is they have the choice to do good or evil in each situation. Due to the concept of free will, God is unable to prevent humans from committing acts of moral evil. If God did remove the ability to choose from the world, then theists would argue this would create an inferior world.”

Read More
1438 Words | 6 Pages

In chapter three of Aquinas for Armchair Theologians by Timothy Renick, Aquinas’s philosophy on evil in the world and the free will of humans is heavily discussed. Renick describes a very complex topic and transforms it into something the average person can read and understand. Aquinas answers the questions of whether evil exists, did God create evil, why does evil exist, and if evil exists, who or what removes it. He also answers the questions of whether humans have the free will to make decisions or has God predetermined every decision and its outcome according to his plan. While I found this article somewhat easy to follow, I can understand how some of Aquinas’s arguments can lead to debate or confusion on the nature of God, evil, and free will.

Read More
921 Words | 4 Pages

Question 2. I think there are reasonable arguments to explain why a purely good God would allow bad things to happen to good people, because it demonstrates his wisdom and sovereignty. Some of these arguments

Read More
877 Words | 4 Pages

“The Problem of Evil” is simply the question, why does God allow evil to happen? God is omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, and rational, therefore why does evil exist? There is either no God or he is not what we think he is, since evil could be prevented by him with no risk. Atheists and anti-theodicist see a problem with the idea that God could prevent evil. They believe that because God is so powerful and perfect, that he would not allow such immoral actions to be done.

Read More
1202 Words | 5 Pages

Fate, by definition, is the universal principle by which the order of things is seemingly prescribed. (Webster) Essentially, fate is events that are inevitable that we have no power to change. It is debatable that fate exists among everyone; however, humans are subject to making their own choices- free will. No matter what choices people make, they do not change our fate.

Read More
1077 Words | 5 Pages

Poetry has always been used as a literary art form to express one’s intense emotions or feelings, but does poetry have a true meaning of reflecting on people’s lives? Despite of the situation the reader may be going through, many people find comfort in poetry to recover and discover new meanings in their lives by relating to the author’s intense literary point of view. Through my journey with poems, I try to see the eye of the author and feel one’s emotions by rereading this type of literature. On this journey, I discover new meanings and different interpretations from John Donne’s “The Flea” that reflects contemporaneous events.

Read More
1088 Words | 5 Pages

Humans have free will because in the everyday lives on an individual they are presented with multiple choices, none of which render the need for a divine power. Saint Augustine states this in the text that individuals are aware of the presence of God, but know they can voluntarily act on the own choices. However, God has the power of foreknowledge. This is because the Lord created everything, meaning he must be aware of what is yet to happen. Augustine again asserts in Book V that God cannot exist without the ability for him to know the future.

Read More

More about The Logical Argument Regarding The Problem Of Evil

Related Topics

Open Document