The Belief Of God 's Middle Knowledge

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.

The Problem of Evil is one of the most influential and common arguments in modern philosophy against the existence of a Greater Being, God (Trakakis, 2006). Both Theist, those who believe in the existence of God, and Atheist, those who don’t believe in the existence of God, argue that evil exists in the world. The Problem of Evil explores whether the existence of evil and suffering constitutes significance evidence for atheism. When looking at the definition of the greater being, most refer to the Omni-god in which is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent, meaning God is all powerful, all knowing and all good. Atheist Philosophers therefore argue that no Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent greater being would allow evil and

One of the biggest problems asked of religion is tied into the existence of evil, pain and suffering. The question of: “If God is good, then why is there evil?” is often asked of the major world religions, including the two monotheistic religions Judaism and Christianity. In the book of Isaiah, verse 45:7 in the Bible it gives us some insight to the question, stating: “I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things” and in Judaism, Victor Frankl, In Man’s Search for Meaning, notes that:” Suffering is an ineradicable part of life”. As well as Christianity, God has made us in his image (Genesis 1:27), allowing us to have the choice to do evil. But why would God allow or even create evil when he, the creator has almighty power?

Does the problem of evil pose a challenge for theists and the existence of God? The problem of evil argues that there is so much suffering in the world that an all-good and all powerful God would not allow such suffering to exist. Therefore, a God with those characteristics does not exist. Unless the suffering is necessary for an adequate reason. Some people argue that suffering is necessary for there to be good and for us to able to understand what good is. In this paper, I will argue that suffering does not need to exist in order for good to exist, because the existence of good does not depend on suffering. I will then argue that good and suffering are not logical opposites. Finally, I will conclude that since evil is not justified, then the God that we defined does not exist.

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

One of the main arguments used by non-believers against the existence of God is the presence of evil and suffering in the world. The term ‘evil’ is often used to describe something that is morally wrong. Philosophers make a distinction between moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil results from human actions that are morally reproachable, and Natural evil results from the malfunctioning of the natural world, which produces entities such as disease and famine.

Firstly, Inwagen examines a theist’s reply that God brings a greater good out of the evils in the world. However, the problem with this reply, Inwagen notes, is that it does not take into account God’s omnipotence. In other words, God could have brought out a greater good from evil than He has. This implies either God is not omnipotent and so is unable to bring about the greater good or if He is omnipotent then this reply implies a moral imperfection. Therefore, Inwagen admits, his defense must include “…the proposition that God was unable bring about the greater goods without allowing evils…” (Reason and Responsibility, 110). Secondly, a theist may reply that there is evil in this world because it allows for an understanding of good. However, Inwagen again notes God’s omnipotence which could teach this contrast through something less evil, such as vivid nightmares. (Reason and Responsibility, 110) Lastly, Inwagen believes, a theist may reply using free will. Inwagen defines free will as a free choice between different options, for example A or B, where God cannot make a person choose A over B because it is a contradiction to the definition of free will. Moreover, humans abuse free will which causes or “produces a certain amount of evil”. Nonetheless, free will is good that outweighs its evil affects, so, that is why God has allowed it. (Reason and Responsibility, 111) Inwagen notes the objections to this solution as well: (i) the good from free will

The Evidential Problem of Evil was first raised by the contemporary American philosopher William Leonard Rowe. Unlike the Logical Problem of Evil, the argument claims that it’s not the mere existence of evil that is problematic to the theistic world but it is the amount of pointless and useless evil that poses a threat to God’s existence. Before delving into Rowe’s argument, it is necessary to clarify some of the terms used. The term “God” refers to a divine entity that is all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful while a “theist” is a person that believes in such a God and an “atheist” is a person that rejects the existence of such a God (355). So with the terms clarified, Rowe presents his argument as follows: i. “There exist instances of intense

Theodicy attempts to explain why evil and suffering persists in the world. There are multiple theodicies ranging, from Augustine’s free will defense to Maimonides rejection of human suffering altogether as a state of mind. However, a simpler and perhaps easier stance to hold is that, evil and suffering exist and that there is no God that responsible for it, since no God exists. Christopher Hitchens would use Occam’s razor and conclude that his answer is most likely to be correct due to its simplicity (Hitchens 87). Theodicies while often eloquent, are often long-winded, complex and always leave some questions unanswered. The Irenaean theodicy as outlined by John Hick explains that suffering experienced by humanity is a way that humanity is molded and shaped towards perfection (Hick 44). The Irenaean theodicy fails at explaining great calamities and assumes too optimistically that humanity can learn from their suffering. In fact, great suffering is perhaps even more capable of destroying character than building it. In times of disaster, desperation sets in and humans act more selfishly, causing looting and crime to skyrocket. In the interest of national security, we have deployed nuclear weapons and napalm and employed torture and extrajudicial executions of US citizens. Sometimes in response to human evil we

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

The problem of evil is an ancient theological problem. Evil is an immoral, malevolent behavior towards oneself, others, and nature. Unjust suffering has many causes, including natural causes like earthquakes. The key question is, “Why does God allow unjust suffering?” The reasons are due to people being sinners, a way for God to test whether one’s faith will change and the unpredictable sequence of nature.

The problem of evil questions the nature of God and threatens his status as a figure worthy of worship. Surely human beings would not wish to worship a God that is neither all good nor all-powerful? The figure we call God is seen to be entirely perfect and flawless in every way. The problem of evil also questions God’s omniscience, in respects that he is all knowing. If God is omniscient then he must know the harm that evil does and the suffering it will cause. The attributes in question are the essence of the nature of God and without them he becomes more like a human than a God. If any of God’s characteristics are omitted, he

The presence of unnecessary evil in the world has sparked controversy about the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient being. The problem of evil, in its most basic sense, claims that the evil in the world is unnecessary and contradictory to the existence of God. In this essay I will briefly summarize the logical problem of evil given by J. L. Mackie and the evidential problem of evil provided by William Rowe. I will then dispute that these arguments are irrelevant because humans are incredibly limited and cannot comprehend the purposes of God. I will then present an objection to my argument claiming that despite not knowing God’s true intentions humans have subjectively defined suffering and as such an all-good and all-knowing

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 relatively close to the hearts of the most common people. If God is good, then why is there evil? These facts about evil and suffering seem to conflict with the orthodox theist claim that there exists a perfectly good God. The challenged posed by this apparent conflict has come to be known as the problem of evil. If God were all-knowing, it seems that God would know about all the horrible things that happen in our world. If God were all-powerful, God would be able to do something about all the evil and suffering. Furthermore, if God were morally