Problem Of Evil : The Problem Of 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.

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.

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.

John Hick discusses in his essay The Problem of Evil, the objections to the belief in the existence of God is the presence of evil in the world. He begins by posing the traditional challenge to theism in the form of the dilemma: That if God was perfectly loving, he must wish to abolish evil, and being all powerful, is able to perfectly do so as he will its. He then proceeds to present some views regarding this issue, giving insights from three point of views, that of contemporary Christian Science, the Boston Personalist school, and the theologian Augustine. The first opinion takes evil as an illusion, as a construct of the human mind. The second confers upon God finity, God as a struggling ruler,

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.

with some evil in it. Better? Why would God being so good and concerned about

The problem of evil or problem of suffering is an argument against the existence of God. It claims that the existence of evil, such as pain and death, is incompatible with the existence of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient God. The first statement of this problem is presented by the greek philosopher Epicurus. He basically says that “if God is willing to prevent evil but not able then he is not omnipotent if he is able to prevent it but not willing then he is not omnibenevolent. If he is both, able and willing then where does evil come from, and if he is neither able nor willing then why call him God”.

(1) According to Buddhist beliefs, there is neither a soul nor an essential self. Karma is understood as good or bad intentional actions performed in the mind, body, and speech. Good intentions will lead to good consequences and bad intentions will lead to bad consequences. Therefore, good karma is better than bad karma, but no karma is better than good karma. The intentions performed in a small scale will affect a person’s life on a large scale. Each person is the cause of what he or she reaps in the world. The individual is responsible for his or her own karmic results. The way in which they think, the physical action that they perform, and what they say further affect karmic intentions and results. By knowing this, a person can change his or her behavior in an attempt to achieve good karmic results. In Buddhist Literature, there is a list of ten meritorious deeds:” generosity, morality, meditation, reverence, service, transference of merit, rejoicing in others’ merit, hearing the doctrine, teaching the doctrine, and straightening one’s views.” By completing at least one of the ten meritorious deeds, a person can experience good karma. For instance, if we are kind and help someone in need of help, whether or not we know him or her, then that is good karma. If someone is sick or injured and we offer them help to get better, then that is good karma. On the other hand, if we curse because we miss the bus or the bus is late to bring us to school or work, then this is bad

One of the heaviest arguments against God’s existence is the problem of evil. The traditional conception of God is as omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. If this is true then God either can’t do anything about it, doesn’t know about it or doesn’t care about it. This then implies that God is either not all powerful as he can’t prevent the suffering, not all-knowing as he doesn’t know about the suffering, or not all good if he doesn’t care about the suffering. This challenges the concept of God being the greatest being in the universe. However, there are many different responses to the concept of evil, they may not be all satisfactory but they cast doubt on this argument. One of the responses challenging the problem of evil is that God did not create the evil in the world. A lot of the evil in the world only occurs

The problem of evil (the problem of suffering) is an argument against the existence of God

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

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.

Many question the existence of God by bringing up the problem of evil. Essentially, the argument is that a deity, who has the attributes of omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience, cannot exist, since evil both natural and moral exist. Moral evil is considered to be suffering caused by either an action or an inaction by one or more humans towards other humans. Natural evil, on the other hand, has no human cause and includes things such as disease and hurricanes. Many, however, argue that evil is necessary in this world due to free will. The idea is that it is not possible for people who have the ability to choose from right or wrong to always choose the moral option. As a result, suffering occurs. It is often further argued that free will is a highly valuable attribute, and so, God would want us to have free will, even though suffering would necessarily occur. However, inserting free will does not, unfortunately, do away with the problem of evil.

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

But does the presence of evil and suffering really dismiss God’s existence? Perhaps the simple fact that people acknowledge the idea of evil and suffering concludes the existence of God. If there is a moral standard which people deem appropriate, where did this moral standard come from? Why, God, of course. God is the being that each man strives to walk in the image of. However, there is a difference between moral suffering and natural suffering. Moral sufferings are those which man inflicts upon man, but natural sufferings are those predicaments which man has no control over (tornadoes, epidemics, earthquakes, etc.), these natural sufferings should be laid to rest by God if he exists according to non-believers. On the contrary, it is known that the emergence of natural sufferings in the world has come from man’s failure to reach the moral standards which God required for us to live in a paradise on Earth. “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. Snd not only they, but ourselves also… even we ourselves groan within ourselves,waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body,” (Romans 7:22-23). In this we see that we had a world without evil and suffering until mankind destroyed it, causing the Earth to groan with pains, and