The Problem Of Evil : An Argument Against Religion Essay

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

Evil can be categorized into two forms, moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil is brought about by bad choices that stem from our free will. Natural evil is bad things that happen to people, whether they deserve them or not. The problem with evil is,

If we humans are responsible for “human evil”, then surely, only God can be responsible for “natural evil”. Yet if we apply God’s benevolent feature, the fact that natural evil exist would be contradictory, unless we alter the meaning and definition of natural evil. Either natural evil is not really evil or there is a good purpose behind the natural evils. Though free will defense does not answer these two questions, or at least not directly. We can also assume God cannot create this world without including said natural evil, but then that would, per

In the world of the living, evil is not inherent and can change or influence a person’s aspect of the world based on the community they are in. Evil is the force of things that are morally wrong and the matter of suffering, wrongdoing and misfortune (Merriam Webster). Evil is not inherent because an evil community can change or influence a person’s way of thinking, can consume people the more they are relinquished to it, and can mold a person when a person has power or feel a certain way. Furthermore, evil can be claim as not inherent from reading about Josef Mengele, Stanley Milgram, and the Stanford Prison Experiment. I will persuade my point that evil is not inherent from the sources that depicts the claim of evil.

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

Natural evil is evil caused not by humans but by our environment around us; this includes hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. This is considered a problem for the Free Will Defense because natural evil exists regardless of the existence of Free Will. The answer to this problem is that it is possible that the naturally evil events are caused by demons, thus absolving both humanity and God from any moral responsibility. Another possible answer is that at one point humans were able to avoid these natural evils through the use of psychic abilities and precognition; this theory speculates that these abilities were lost due to the fall from Eden.

The best response to the problem of evil is the free will response. This response argues that God, although “All-PKG,” is not literally capable of doing anything. That is, God cannot do something against its own definition. For example, God cannot create a box which is round, because the definition of those two things makes them impossible to be the other. Following this logic, the free will response says that God created humans as beings with free will, so he cannot control the actions of humans based on the definition of free will.

Throughout this essay I will be assessing the question “Does the problem of evil argument show that God Does not exist” and I aim to show how it proves that god Does not exist. I aim to do so by analyzing the problem of evil arguments premises and conclusion as well as assessing the following arguments and objections: Necessary evil; The free will defense; the problem of natural evil, logical argument and the evidential argument.

In order to fully understand the argument, we need to go over what evil and the free will defense are. The definition of the word evil is: morally wrong deeds or actions, misfortune or suffering. For example, Joseph Stalin was a man who committed the worse of all evils. He was the reason for the execution in millions of humans. This is called moral evil.

Everyday it is possible to read a newspaper, or turn on TV or radio news and learn about evil going on in our world. Banks are robbed, cars are stolen, violent murders and rapes are committed. Somewhere in the world the aftershock of an earthquake is being felt. Cancer is killing millions of people each year, while other debilitating conditions continue to affect many with no cure to end their suffering. President Bush said that our country is fighting a war against evil. We all agree that evil is real and cannot be ignored; the problem comes when we try and rationalize the concept of God and evil coexisting.

The problem of evil is widely considered as the most detrimental problem to the monotheist. It is also the primary objection to the overall existence of God. The problem is very easy to comprehend: If God is an all-perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful deity then why do we live in a world with any imperfection or negativity at all? Why do bad things happen at all? Especially to the good people in the world and the millions of innocent people who suffer on a daily basis. Gottfreid Leibniz was a philosopher, who took aim at the problem and wished to point out that the existence of evil and God are compatible of evil and and the typical logic is: (1) if God was an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good being then this world would be the best

In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche discusses how he is not a believer in democracy. The principles of democracy were put together by levelers, or people that believe in democracy. These principles lead to equality that restrains life to one universal truth and Nietzsche did not agree with this idea at all. He believed that these principles caused people to form into one large herd. In this herd, people follow one another with no will to power, which results in the downfall of individual rights and instincts. This makes the herd the definition of morality in society, which Nietzsche disagrees with. But he brings up the idea of neighbor love. Neighbor love is the idea that we are all in one herd so we are all equal which creates us to all

“The Tyger” provides a harsh tone which can create tension as “The Lamb” has a simplistic tone that can evoke a mild meaning. Even though both tones are present in these two poems, “The Lamb” and “The Tyger” their themes are of greater importance then the vague language. The language used in each of these poems respectfully give distorted impressions of the poem's significance. The themes present are the evil in this world, the relationship between the Creator and His creation, and the initial innocence being destroyed by experience. In essence, “The Tyger” is a creation of God and can be viewed as evil which creates immense tension. However it is true that a good God can create evil.

The existence of God has been questioned since the beginning of time. Religions thrived on answering the unanswerable questions of the universe and people were able to find solace in the answers. As science has expanded and been able to answer these questions with natural, as opposed to supernatural answers, many people stopped looking to God and religion for the causes of things and started looking towards science. God was dead, according to many scientists and people of all professions. Many philosophers, however, have different conclusions.