John Hick's Response To The Problem Of Evil

The beauty of the problem of evil is its simplicity. David Hume displays the problem well by questioning the existence of God and evil. For, if both God and evil exist, God must either be “willing to prevent evil, but not able” or “able, but not willing”. Hume shows that there seems to be a problem with God and evil coexisting. For, with an all good entity

One of the oldest dilemmas in philosophy is also one of the greatest threats to Christian theology. The problem of evil simultaneously perplexes the world’s greatest minds and yet remains palpably close to the hearts of the most common people. If God is good, then why is there evil? The following essay describes the problem of evil in relation to God, examines Christian responses to the problem, and concludes the existence of God and the existence of evil are fully compatible.

Out of all the different choices human’s have to make not all of them are made using freewill, for example someone’s choice may me chosen by something or someone else and thus any evil that is caused from that choice was not chosen via freewill. If evil is created this way then it is not supporting the existence of god. There are many examples of this like how suffering (evil) may be created from a natural disaster, which was not an option someone had chosen via freewill, this creates a problem for the free will defence. Not all evil is due to choices human’s have made. In response to this problem for the free will defence, if god was all good, powerful and knowing then he would have been able to prevent and stop natural disasters as the evil they create is not due to freewill. However, this is evidently not true as natural disasters have

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

Is there any satisfactory way of reconciling the existence of an omnipotent and all-loving God with the existence of natural evil (i.e. evil not due to the misuse of human free will)? One of the central claims of the Judaeo-Christian tradition is the existence of an omnipotent and all-loving God. Against this is the observation that people and animals suffer evil. By common sense, we would infer from this observation that God, as conceived in this tradition, does not exist - for, if He did, He would prevent the evil. This inference is called the Problem of Evil by those who profess one of the religions in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and their attempts to 'solve' the problem have given rise to a labyrinth of sophistry.

It’s only not depict a logical argument intended for a disciple, however, he give an dispute of such extent as to style a disciple’s religious opinions wholly illogical in as much as a disciple grips to something that can be proved moreover believe on what can be present refuted from extra theories they grip.

Evil is something that exists in many forms. From big evils like Hitler’s Holocaust and slavery, to small evils like getting a papercut and getting stuck in the rain (perhaps to some this might be a big evil), evil is basically anything that is not good. For theologians, evil poses several problems, most notably when it comes to the existence of God.

The two solutions to what we call the problem of evil are: the free will defense and the Supralapsarian theodicy. The free will defense argues that evil and God are not incompatible because God didn’t create evil. According to this defense, human beings create evil with the free will that God given them. Since free will must be totally free, God cannot guide us to do what is good only since he wants his creatures to have complete freedom over their lives and what they do. So, by proving that God and evil can coexist logically, the free will defense is a path out of the problem of evil.

It is a universal maxim in the tenets of the main monotheistic religions, that, if a Christian/Jew/Muslim holds true to God, they will assert the continued existence of, “the self,” the monotheistic-trio’s idea being the most overt with Judaism, one of the trio, during the dark period of history titled the Holocaust. From 1933 to 1945, the Holocaust was essentially a methodical killing of certain categories of people - 11 million total, 6 million being Jews, the rest being Gypsies, homosexuals, and the disabled - by a party of cold, intelligent, unempathetic people, going by the name of Nazis. However, ‘twas not always direct killing, but sometimes the killing of “the self,” that being defined as a person’s ability to make personal decisions

An argument against the existence of God is based on the presence of evil in the world. This deductively valid argument is divided into two categories; human action and natural evil (Sober, 2005, p. 120). Human action discusses how experiences makes us better people, while natural evil are tragic events that are not under the control of humans. Each category is used as evidence to refute God as an all-powerful omniscient, omnibenevolent, or omnipotent being. In order to understand the strengths of this argument, it is important for an overall assessment of how the presence of evil questions if a Supreme Being actually exists, by arguing why a being of all-good would allow evil, importance of evil in a good world, and questioning God’s intervention in evil.

For atheists, apologetics, and non-believers, a big topic of contention is the existence of evil in a world with God. This is known as the problem with evil. How does a God that is all knowing, all powerful, and perfectly good allow such atrocities to occur under his watch? It is this question that so many people have discussed. The argument centers on God being omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good (Mackie, 1955 p. 200). Omnipotent is to be all powerful. Omniscient is to be all knowing and to be perfectly good means that God would prevent a morally bad event from ever happening (Swinburne, 1998 p. 13). In the problem of evil, God’s powers are taken at face value, and applied to God’s inaction to evil on earth. People who argue against the topic of evil typically make generalizations on the attributes that God

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 logical problem of evil is often referred to as the inconsistent triad, this being that the following propositions; God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and evil exists, are inconsistent. Also known as a reduction ad absurdum argument, whereby all three propositions cannot be true together. Theists, like Swinburne, come to the conclusion that the three propositions are compatible with one another, whereas atheists, like Mackie, believe that they are incompatible and therefore God does not exist. I shall be arguing in line with Swinburne’s view, describing the following defenses, indicating that there is no logical problem of evil.

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.

The problem of evil is as ancient as humanity itself. Since the dawn of man, thinkers, philosophers, religionists and practically every human being who have suffered at the hands of evil have pondered this enigma, either as a logical-intellectual-philosophical or emotional-religious-existential problem. The preponderance of evil as a reality in human existence, and