The Problem Of Evil And Atheism

Many of the choices we make, using our free will, lead to suffering. We participate in risky behavior, without thinking of the consequences. For example, people that smoke have greater chances of developing health problem (e.g., cancer), which results in pain and suffering. This type of suffering is caused by our errors and mistakes. Many of the choice we make have consequences, but is it is impossible to live in a way in which we do not take risks. Furthermore, God's existence comes from intellect and not the sense, but suffering is felt through through our senses, whether it be external or internal pain. Suffering is adventitious and not

Many people would like to believe that God has a good reason for making them suffer, but Kushner argues that such a theology doesn't reconcile the goodness of God with the existence of evil. Lastly, some people try to explain suffering by believing that it comes to liberate humans from a world of pain and lead them to a better place. "Sometimes in our reluctance to admit that there is unfairness in the world, we try to persuade ourselves that what has happened is not really bad. We only think it is" (p. 27). In the end, this explanation attempts to work by denying the existence of evil altogether. Kushner finds these responses to suffering unsatisfying, because they assume that God is the cause of human suffering and they attempt to comprehend why God would want humans to suffer. The reasoning behind these justifications of suffering is that it is punishment deserved, it is for one's own good, or God does not care about what happens to people. Kushner recognizes that these rationales can cause people to blame themselves, can lead to a denial of reality, or cause the repression of one's feelings. Because of this, Kushner attempts to create his own reasoning for why bad things happen to good people.

J. L. Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence” criticizes the argument that God exists by showing that religious beliefs are positively irrational and that parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another. The problem of evil is one of the oldest problems in philosophy. The problem of evil is a logical problem for only the people who believe that there is a God who is both (1) omnipotent and (2) wholly good; yet (3) evil exists in the world. If God is wholly good and omnipotent, then how can there be a presence of evil in the world. Given the presence of evil, we must either conclude that God does not have the power to prevent the suffering that evil causes in which case God is not omnipotent or that God does not wish

Rowe’s argument originates from the argument of evil, which is, if there is an omniscient being, who is in fact, then why does this being allow meaningless suffering to exist ? Therefore, there is no God because gratuitous suffering does exist. In this argument, Rowe finds the definition for God and Evil within this argument. In Rowe’s case, God means a wholly, good omniscient being, and Evil means(well in God’s case) the action of not doing anything when animal or people are in need of such an awesome being. Rowe’s argument is pretty much the same as the argument of evil, except he applied a few conditions, which is what he summarized from the evil argument himself . The conditons: If there is some greater good, it is only obtainable if God permits it. Or, there is a greater good, that God permits either, or some evil equally bad or worse. Finally, gratititous suffering is preventable only if omniscient God permits some evil

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

How Can Our God Allow Suffering in the World? “Why does God let men suffer?” That is the most common question made by atheists. On the other hand people, such as Billy Graham, believed that God lets us suffer to test us. Billy Graham believes God does this “because we don’t know how strong we are” (Billy Graham).

The Argument from evil is an issue that many regard as providing an issue for atheism. It uses the fact that since there is evil in the world, and so much of it, that there cannot be a God. There are four forms this argument might take, however, I do not think any of them successfully proves that there is no God. The first form the Argument from evil goes as follows: 1.

What is evil? What is suffering? Religions all over the world have been trying to answer these questions for centuries. This essay will examine their responses, and briefly look at the practical application of the Christian response to suffering.

The issue of evil is the favorite point on which secularists hang their atheistic argument.

“Why does God let men suffer?” That is the most common question made by atheists. On the other hand people, such as Billy Graham, believed that God lets us suffer to test us. Billy Graham believes God does this “because we don’t know how strong we are” (Billy Graham). Pain exists because of humankind's choice to sin, its origin, scholars’ views, and contemporary suffering.

People who are suffering emotionally, physically, and mentally in their everyday lives usually pray to God and ask Him to watch over them. Though on the other side, many people will question themselves, “Why is God doing this to me?”. Due to being taught that God is loving and caring to those who believe in Him, it brings about an expectation that as long as an individual remains faithful to God and is able to wisely make decisions between right and wrong, the individual will not experience a traumatic sense of suffering. However, as the individual continues to live on, they realize that they will experience a moment in their life when they will be suffering, either for a moment or for an extended period of time whether or not it is unexpected. Therefore, the view in a religion that God is merciful, loving, and caring would not be helpful to those who are suffering.

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

In the article, “On Being an Atheist”, H.J. McCloskey discusses the reasons of why he believes being an atheist is a more acceptable than Christianity. McCloskey believes that atheism is a more rational belief versus having a God who allows people to suffer so he can have the glory. He believes to live in this world, you must be comfortable. The introduction of his article, he implements an overview of arguments given by the theist, which he introduces as proofs. He claims that the proofs do not create a rationalization to believe that God exists. He provides 3 theist proofs, which are Cosmological argument, teleological argument, and the argument of design. He also mentions the presence of evil in the world. He focuses on the existence

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

Pain and suffering in the face of the idea of an all powerful and good God has presented difficulties for philosophers and theologians alike for centuries. The 20th century Jewish French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas attempts to explain pain in his essay, Useless Suffering. Levinas suggest through an abbreviated phenomenology and subsequent thrashing of theodicy that suffering is best understood as “meaningful in me, useless in the Other.”1 While Levinas 's phenomenology is logically consistent, his assessment of usefulness of theodicy in light of the suffering of the 20th century is suspect, however this does not impact the validity of his understanding of suffering in the inter-human order. Levians 's attempt to address the phenomenon of suffering from his observations led to a flawed mindset that excused the work of theodicy rather choosing to explain “useless suffering” from an inter-human perspective apart from God.