The Evidential Problem Of Evil Summary

In other words, some people refer to evil as sin and suffering; others think of it as a separation from God while still more people personify it in the form of satan. My purpose here is not to discuss what form evil may take in an individual's life even though it may come up periodically. The central fact remains that evil, in one form or another, does exist and anyone not willing to believe in this reality quite frankly lives in a different dimension. Either that, or they simply live in a total state of denial! Keeping all this in mind, what I want to accomplish in this paper is to first explore the idea that evil is a relative term that exists within the context of each situation. Ah, yes! Even as I wrote that last sentence, I could see the wheels turning in your head. But not to worry. I will clarify soon. From this point, I will seek the wisdom of people who have tried to answer these tough questions proposed on the first page, come to some more conclusions through personal interviews and then end on a more personal note, using the help of my life experience as a Christian. This topic hits me hard at times. I often find myself in reflection, trying to formulate an answer to the evil that I see, and yes, the evil that I do. This evil will sometimes leave me feeling totally powerless and at its mercy. Yet I never give up hope for I know that just through the process of writing this paper, some new insights will be

Inwagen answers that for God to reconfigure the world so as to restore paradise immediately after the Fall would require Him to extinguish all memories of the events leading to the Fall. Such an act would be deceitful – a quality we assume a perfect being does not have. Furthermore, were God to immediately restore man to union with Him, there is no reason to believe that man would not fall again. By allowing man to experience the pain and suffering of evil in this world, God allows man to come to know the real and wretched consequences of turning away from God. The sooner man realizes the hideousness of the fallen world, the sooner he will complete the plan of Atonement, turning his love back to God and asking for His grace. By making the restoration of union with God (in Heaven) a gradual process of living in an evil and wretched world, God’s looking out for man’s eternal welfare, assuring that man will not fall again. In the mean time, the more evil, pain, and suffering God allows man to experience here on earth, the faster man will turn to God and secure goodness for his life eternal.

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 inductive argument can be explained as such: One, God has his three qualities; Two, evils exist; Three, God does not exist since evil exist when he has the three qualities (Powerpoint Topic 1:God). Surely, free will can suggests that evil exist because of choices of men and not God, regardless of whether or not God is a consistent character by the act of giving us free will. Suppose he is, and it is logical for God to grant humans free will, that still does not answer premise two in a valid manner. The free will defense attacks premise two by suggesting that evils exist because free will also exist and such evil is the very product of human actions, therefore premise three is no longer as God is no longer responsible. However, besides evil as a product, we also have natural evil, namely sickness and other natural occurrences.

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.

God really exists in the world, but he will not stop many evils because he thinks free will is much important for people. The occurrence of certain evils cannot be an evidence against the existence of God. If God stops evil, then people have no free will to do everything they want and express their need. By talking about theodicy and the free will defense, Swinburne provides a sufficient response to solve the problem of evil. There are rational grounds for belief in God despite the existence of evil.

The Possibility of Proving the Existence of God Using Inductive and Deductive Arguments Many philosophers have attempted to prove the existence of God, although there is no argument as yet which proves without any doubt that God exists. A proof is the demonstration that something is true or, in this case, that God exists. There are 3 types of proof; direct, deductive, and inductive. A direct proof is when something is immediately obvious, so therefore, it cannot be used to prove God's existence.

Thus, in theology, God saved the only a select few” (Hunt, Martin, Rosenwein, Smith 453). The idea that humans lacked free will and that their major life events were predetermined by God was a radically different mindset that shocked the world at the

The argument for the existence of God has been a debate for many centuries. God, in terms of philosophy, must be a supernatural being that: is all-knowing, is all-powerful, and is all-good. Theists believe God exists based on these terms; atheists on the other hand don’t believe in God. Atheists believe that if there is evil present in the universe, then there is no possible way God can exist if he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Evil is defined in three different categories: human evil (evil we humans cause), natural evil (not in our control, of the Earth), and sufferings of the heart (not necessarily human/natural evil). The argument for the problem of evil is that God doesn’t exist because evil exists. In

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.

From this, some possible solutions arise. Simply, if stating that one of the premises is not true, then the problem of evil does not exist. Maybe one does not believe that God’s power is limited or perhaps are prepared to say that evil does not exist and is merely an illusion. It is hard to truly prove that these solutions are true, but they are solutions nonetheless. Along with these adequate solutions, are some solutions that Mackie describes as “fallacious”. The most noted one very well could be the Free Will Defense.

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.

They are deductive arguments that try to prove Gods existence is logically incompatible with Evil

Argument Evaluation, Nagel: Evil in the Face of God’s Benevolence In “Does God Exist?” Nagel explores the various criticisms against theism. One claim that Nagel examined is known as the “evil is only an illusion” argument, an argument that strives to remedy the problem of evil. In this theistic thesis, it is believed that evil does not exist, at least, not the way it is colloquially defined.

The problem of evil cripples reasonable belief in the God of theism and although successful theodicies have been made to subvert the problem of evil, they cannot get rid of the doubt and for some the proof that God does not exist.