Theodicy And Suffering

The existence of pain and suffering in a world created by a good and almighty God is a fundamental theological dilemma and may be the most serious objection to the Christian religion. In the book, The Problem Of Pain , author C.S. Lewis addresses the issue of pain as a mere problem that demands a solution; he formulates it and goes about solving it. "If God were good, He would make His creatures perfectly happy, and if He were almighty He would be able to do what He wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore God lacks either goodness, or power, or both" (p. 16). According to Lewis, this is the problem of pain in its simplest form. In his attempt to solve the problem of pain Lewis evaluates the past and the origin of religion, he

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

God cannot determine the outcome of our free choice. So either there is no omniscient god or we are created without free will and therefore are forced/unable to avoid doing evil. Again this shows that god is not benevolent, nor omniscient, therefore he is non-existent. Theists may argue the following reason for god to have granted humans free will. It is possible that god raised homo sapiens to rationality giving the gift of abstract thought, language and disinterested love. And so it is arguable that god gave us free will to allow for love, as free will is necessary for love. Although this may be one of many reasons that god granted us free will, it is one that we may understand. Free will is necessary for both erotic and platonic love. One may argue that evil is only trumped by love. And that the existence of evil, although in its masses is worth it for the sake of

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

Why Does God allow suffering? This question is probably as old as religion itself. It is a stumbling block for some of us, and for many more at given moments of tragedy. There are as many answers to this question as there are people who care to engage in theological dialogue. One understanding is that yes, God allows "bad" things to happen; God does not cause them to happen.

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

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.

This then begs the question; what are the reasons that God believes that the existence of evil is necessary? There are two ways of approaching an argument for the belief that God has his reasons to allow evil. These two ways are a theodicy and a defense. In his book, Inwagen says “The difference between a theodicy and a defense is simply that a theodicy is put forward as true, while nothing more is claimed of a defense than that it represents a real possibility” (31). Theodicy takes into account the evidence of evil and shows that it is still reasonable to believe in a God despite the existence of evil. Overall, a theodicy is a justification for God. A defense, on the other hand, offers a logical explanation for the existence of evil. A defense may say that there are reasons that God allows evil to persist, but, humans may never know these reasons. There is one well known and most rational defense. This is called the free-will defense. The free-will defense says that God made the world and included rational beings. He gave them the power of free-will. This meant that humans held the ability to make their own decisions and to have their own desires freely without any barriers. God decided that overall, free-will was a great enough good and that the existence of it outweighed the existence of the evil that results from the abuse of

If God is both omnipotent and wholly good, then He would make men freely choose good on every occasion.

Now that I have discussed where evil originated, I want to provide a brief definition of evil. Most people will agree that evil is any cruel act, serious harm to another person mentally or physically. It can also be identified in a level of evil meaning people tend to feel that the more harm done to a person the greater the level of evil. Some examples of evil are acts of murder or abuse that harms another human being or animals. While I do agree with this definition of evil, I also think there is another crucial part of the definition. It is that evil itself is an act against the law of God. The Bible uses the word evil to define anything that is in violation of God’ law. In the connection between good and bad, evil is also seen as the absence of goodness. A simple way to understand the connection is that evil is a “fundamental and troubling departure from goodness” (Alcorn, 2009, p. 25). Alcorn’s view of evil is a complete absence and rejection of God’s goodness. I completely agree with this definition of evil, but I also understand that not all people believe in my God or any God for that matter. Atheists also identify evil in the world and they would agree with me on some acts that I think are evil. However, their definition does not include God. For example, Humanists believe there is good without God. They see the evil in the world and believe they must

This is a great blow against classic theology that describes God as all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, ect… However, the process theologians argue that God is the most-powerful being, the most-knowing being, and the most-good being that could exist. This slight change in thinking complete attacks the view of the classical theologian’s views in their perfect God. In process theology many arguments are made to fight the “all” standing of the classical Theologians. Arguments that point the inconsistency of an all-powerful and all-good God that allows evil to exist in the world. A popular response to the existence of evil is that God graced humanity with the gift of free will. However, the process theologians have asked how an all knowing God can allow free will, if he knows what everyone will choose. These two arguments against that “all” God have allowed the process to take a slightly weaker stance, the “most” God. This allows God to know the most possible, but not necessarily all future events. And therefore free will is plausible and evil can exist in a world where an extremely good and extremely powerful God also

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 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

The concept of suffering plays an important role in Christianity, regarding such matters as moral conduct, spiritual advancement and ultimate destiny. Indeed an emphasis on suffering pervades the Gospel of Mark where, it can be argued, we are shown how to "journey through suffering" (Ditzel 2001) in the image of the "Suffering Son of Man" (Mark 8:32), Jesus Christ. Although theologians have suggested that Mark was written to strengthen the resolve of the early Christian community (Halpern 2002, Mayerfeld 2005), the underlying moral is not lost on a modern reader grappling with multifarious challenges regarding faith in the face of suffering. In his article "A Christian Response to Suffering", William Marravee (1987) describes suffering

McCloskey proposes: “No being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was unavoidable suffering or in which his creatures would (and in fact could have been created so as not to) engage in morally evil acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons.” Taking this into consideration, when a being exalts good, than it eliminates evil to a point of a greater good or to cause a worse evil. Good that can be brought out of peoples actions outweighs the evil. Atheists attempt to argue with Christians that if there is a God, then there should never be an instance where he cannot be reached. Nevertheless, it is becoming acknowledged that God cannot do what we think is logically impossible. As a Christian, I know that God can do the impossible. I also know that God did not bring evil into this world, but when Adam and Eve sinned is what caused the evil to even start. McCloskey’s statement is an invalid argument.