Leibniz and the Problem of Evil

John Hick argues in this writing that the all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good Christian god is compatible with an abundance of suffering. He offers solutions to the problem of suffering which relies heavily upon a tripartite foundation. Hick divides evil into two: Moral Evil = the evil that human being cause - either to themselves or to each other. And Non-Moral Evil = the evil that is not caused by human activity - natural disasters, etc. He tries to explain that a world without pain and suffering, moral traits such as courage, patience and sympathy would not be developed.

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.

When I think of the concept of “evil,” I think of The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius. In The Consolation of Philosophy, Lady Philosophy stated:

Humans simply cannot know all there is to know in order to conclude God and evil are incompatible. This popular argument attempts a total refutation of LPE; however, it does not directly address LPE, choosing rather to sidestep the immediate issue and attack human cognitive limitations. The argument, while successful in sense, lacks satisfactory closure to LPE and opens an epistemological Pandora’s Box, where everything we know becomes suspect. Consequently, this approach is not a strong one.

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.

The fact that Leibniz rejects the Divine Command Theory is significant, for he is one of the most committed theists in the Western intellectual tradition. He argues at great length that there must be an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God and consequently that this must be the

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.

Since the discovery of philosophy by the Greek civilizations man has always tried to find the cause of many fundamental problems that are connected to the reality and existence of factors that contribute to these dilemmas but still remain unknown to humanity. One of the most controversial questions philosophy tries to answer is the origin of what we consider evil, who or what is connected to the main cause of the pain and suffering that goes on throughout the world. “Evil is when one purposefully causes pain, not pain caused by fault, knowing something is morally wrong, but still proceeds in doing so. Simply by the definition of evil,

William Rowe defines gratuitous evil as an instance of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.(Rowe 335) In a world with so much evil it raises the questions If God is all powerful, all knowing and all good, how can he allow bad things to happen to good people? Can God even exist in a world with so such gratuitous evil? These are questions that has afflicted humanity for a very long time and has been the question to engross theologians for centuries. The existence of evil has been the most influential and powerful reason to disprove the existence of God. It is believed among many theist that God is the creator and caretaker

This paper examines St. Augustine’s view on evil. St. Augustine believed that God made a perfect world, but that God's creatures turned away from God of their own free will and that is how evil originated in the world. Augustine assumes that evil cannot be properly said to exist at all, he argues that the evil, together with that suffering which is created as punishment for sin, originates in the free nature of the will of all creatures. According to Augustine, God has allowed evil to exist in the world because it does not conflict with his righteousness. He did not create evil but is also not a victim of it. He simply allows it to exist.

Your organization skills are superb. I enjoy how you have listed problems with evil. Since these problems are popular among humanity, it would benefit to give plenty of time and effort into theodicies. There are theodicies that are biblically sound. Be aware, however, there are theodicies that are partially logical but fail to comply to biblical truths. For instance, I have fallen for the Leibniz's theodicy because it sounds logical. Eventually, I realized that the theodicy failed biblically. I still agree, nevertheless, with certain sections of his theodicy. Specifically, I agree that God has a good reason to allow evil. I disagree with Leibniz concerning God's goodness sovereignty, and immutability. As Paul said in the letter of Colossians,

The problem of evil has been around since the beginning. How could God allow such suffering of his “chosen people”? God is supposedly all loving (omni-benevolent) and all powerful (omnipotent) and yet He allows His creations to live in a world of danger and pain. Two philosophers this class has discussed pertaining to this problem is B.C. Johnson and John Hick. Johnson provides the theists’ defense of God and he argues them. These include free will, moral urgency, the laws of nature, and God’s “higher morality”. Hick examines two types of theodicies – the Augustinian position and the Irenaeus position. These positions also deal with free will, virtue (or moral urgency), and the laws of nature. Johnson

When objecting the logical problem of evil, Leibniz only shows that the existence of God and evil are compatible - which is all one needs to do against the logical problem of evil since it claims that God and evil are mutually exclusive. It is very simple that when addressing the logical problem, the pure possibility of God and evil coexisting is all one needs to do. The goal of denying the logical problem is merely to defend the possibility of God and evil's coexistence, and to show that they are not implicitly or explicitly contradictory. As far as the probabilistic problem, how can you quantify evil objectively and come up with a scale ranging from an "acceptable amount of evil" to an "unacceptable amount"? However, one could object to this question in that God could have simply created a world with less evil than this world contains. This is true, but that objection in and of itself is certainly irrelevant. God could have created a world with absolutely no moral evil – but this would indeed be a much smaller world, perhaps a world where no significantly free creatures exist at all. This inevitably would lead to another

Whether or not evil is the absence of good is a question that has puzzled Christians since the time of St. Augustine of Hippo. In The Confessions of St. Augustine, he initiates this premise and argues in its favor. Discourse about evil is based on the Christian theological teachings of the omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect benevolence of God as well as the understanding that evil is present in this world. Since these four concepts are contradictory, one of them must be rejected. Thus, St. Augustine argues that evil does not exist. I find St. Augustine’s explanation to be satisfying.

Otherwise, God would not have created evil. Furthermore, Epictetus argues that evil must be useful to humanity because God gifted s with the ability to perceive it. It would be unreasonable for God to have given us a faculty of mind that was of no use. Therefore, evil only appears to be not good but, in light of the entire context of life and life’s purposes, is actually a good. An example of this is in how pain directs us away from harm. In the end, any kinds of evil that may befall any man are able to be overcome by an internal perspective on life’s