A Critical Evaluation of the Deductive Argument from Evil

Before we can dive into the problem of evil, we must define a term. Whenever the word “God” is used in this paper, it is referring to the classical theistic conception of God. In this view of God, God is that, “than which nothing greater can be conceived” in your mind. Any attributes or qualities that make a being great, God has to the maximum. This means that, among many other qualities, God is benevolent(all good), omnipotent(all powerful), and omniscient(all knowing). Furthermore, God is the creator of the universe and is personally connected to the human race.

“The problem of evil is often divided between the logical and evidential problems.” At the heart of each problem is the belief that the existence of God and the existence evil are incompatible. They present an “either/or” dilemma: either God

This essay features the discussion of the problem of evil in relation to the existence of god. Specifically outlining two sections where the problem of evil is discussed from atheist and theistic viewpoint.

But since evil exists, no such being exists. Therefore, God doesn’t exist. Atheists believe this to be a problem because they say that the first and second premises contradict each other, therefore proving the existence of God false. God, as we know it, is a perfectly good God. Since this God is perfectly good and all-powerful, then we assume he would eliminate evil whenever/wherever it is present. While this does hold a strong standpoint against theists, they can come back with an argument that basically states that evil can be allowed if it gives way to the opportunity of a greater good coming from that

J. L. Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence” criticizes the argument that God exists by showing that religious beliefs are positively irrational and that parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another. The problem of evil is one of the oldest problems in philosophy. The problem of evil is a logical problem for only the people who believe that there is a God who is both (1) omnipotent and (2) wholly good; yet (3) evil exists in the world. If God is wholly good and omnipotent, then how can there be a presence of evil in the world. Given the presence of evil, we must either conclude that God does not have the power to prevent the suffering that evil causes in which case God is not omnipotent or that God does not wish

Another attempt to prove the problem of evil is the evidential version of the argument. This argument attempts to show inductively that the existence of God is not likely. This form is much

The problem of evil as suffering is a problem of what to do with the obstacle for the believer but also an obstacle to unbeliever to converge because they do not think it harmonising. In contradiction to compatibility, an atheist often suggested that the present of evil entails the absence of God. Atheist argued, if God exists, then as an omnipotent, he is able to prevent the evil occurrence. For omniscient, it implies under any circumstances evil will occur if he does not act. Then, being perfectly good, he will prevent its occurrence and so evil will not exist. Based on this above proclamation, the existence of God does not compatible with the evil of whatever kind. However, theists response to this logical problem of evil by an atheist is that necessarily perfectly good being, foreseeing the occurrence of evil and able to prevent it, will prevent evil. The essay will first, define what evil is according to Swinburne as one of the philosopher of religion, Second, Swinburne four categories of evil will be discussed (Physical evil, mental evil, state evil, moral evil). Third, Phillip logical and existential problem evil will be discussed through. How will all these above assertions be a problem to those that and does not believe in God.

The article Evil and Omnipotence and The Argument from Evil tie in together. They both argue the existence of evil and God in one way or another. The article Evil and Omnipotence has three main points. Point one states that “God is omnipotent”, meaning that he can do anything that is not impossible.

Widespread controversy surrounds the Problem of Evil and the philosophical premises constructed. Devine entities are perceivably omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, although the extent to which an omni-God of such can coexist with suffering is an extensively debatable topic. The objective of this essay’s argument is to posit a range of deliberation regarding the integrity of various theoretical claims, where if God truly existed, would this subjectively “all-good” entity allow evil to exist? 2. Problem of Evil

The Problem of Evil questions the existence of evil in a world constructed by a seemingly omniscient God. Evil’s existence in a world with a God that is both benevolent and all-knowing is within itself a paradox. Therefore, a God that is omnipotent cannot exist with evil being present in the world. I argue that Leibniz’s argument for the Problem of Evil outclasses that of the likes of John Perry’s because Leibniz’s argument states that evil is a result of there being a need for a greater rather than a limitation on God’s power. Leibniz’s main position in addressing the Problem of Evil is that the world with evil is more than likely better than the world without evil due to evil being often accompanied by a greater good or meaning.

The argument against the existence of God is incompatible with the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God.

The Logical Argument from Evil follows the construct of the modus tollens, where it states that God cannot be all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing if Evil exists in the world. The Empirical Argument is an inductive argument that explains how God is a neutral, powerful being that collects data on both the good and evil in the world. Thus, God is indifferent to mankind’s pain and suffering, and also happiness. Since evil exists, this argument’s conclusion is fully supported. The Logical Argument thus states that God cannot be this supreme, powerful being whereas The Empirical Argument supports God’s credibility as the supreme all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving.

Generally, God is known to be all good, to have complete control and power, and to be loving. Although, how come there is evil in the world with such an angelic God?  If God cares and loves us- wouldnt he prevent the suffering if he could? Since he is all powerful, he should be able to eliminate the suffering that evil brings. It seems we only have two potential answers: either God is not loving and all powerful, or God does not exist. Although, I am going to try to give an alternative answer and possibly explain how God could coexist with evil.

Stephen Law conducted a thought experiment with a purpose of establishing the existence of an evil God, whereby he challenged those who believed in the presence of a kind and good God, doing nothing evil, and argued that the existent God is wicked indeed. The hypothesis developed into the challenge based on the argument that, if an omnibenevolent God is said to exist, yet there is so much evil in the world, then there is as well a possibility that an evil God exists, yet there is so much good. Law aimed to doubt not the fact of the existence of God, but the generally accepted assumption that the existing God is benevolent. Another researcher, Rowe, refutes this approach, arguing that the existence of a Supreme Being, who created people and hence cares for them, cannot be associated with evil. In fact, the presence of evil is a clear sign of the absence of a God. This paper seeks to take a position opposing to Law’s theory and prove that, despite the presence of evil, an omnibenevolent God still exists.

The theological problem of evil is a problem that many philosophers have tried to solve. The problem is stated as, "if one believes that god is omnipotent and wholly good, why does evil still exist?" In this writing I will discuss the solutions/propositions of John L. Mackie in his work, "Evil and Omnipotence." I will do this in order to illustrate the concept of free will for understanding or resolving the problem, and to reveal how and why Mackie arrives at his conclusions.