Theodicy: Why Doesn T God Prevent Evil

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.

In the course of this essay I will argue that evil is not compatible with the existence of god. This means that evil and God cannot coexist because if god were present, the existence of evil would contradict all that god is believed to be. Abrahamic religions insist that God both created the world and that he preserves and maintains it. Christianity claims that God is all knowing and is boundless in his abilities. Religions claim that God is benevolent, and only wants the best for humanity and the universe, as his creations. If all of the above statements be true, then it is hard to understand why god would allow evil to thrive right from the beginning of time.

The question that was posed in this week’s discussion had me pondering not only what I felt about the statement, “God is good,” but also what the book referred to as a prerequisite that adhered to the statement. First I would like to take a look at what the author of the book refers to as “good” when referencing God. J.L. Mackie’s principle states, “It follows that a good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely, and then the propositions that a good omnipotent things exists, and that evil exists, are incompatible” (Davies 209). This statement made by Mackie would suggest that if there was a good omnipotent “thing,” evil would not exist. Mackie believes that since evil exists, then there must not be a God. Mackie also points out a contradiction

This essay features the discussion of the problem of evil in relation to the existence of god. Specifically outlining two sections where the problem of evil is discussed from atheist and theistic viewpoint.

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

Why does an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God allow natural and moral evil to happen without any restrictions? John Hick, a proponent of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’s theodicy defense, answered: “in order that human beings, as free responsible agents, may use this world as a place of “soul making,” which involves the spiritual perfection of our character and persons” (Pojman 74). According to Hick, creation has not been finished its work, it is still undergoing a process, that is, the lives of individual human beings. Hick believed that God is omnibenevolent because he is allowing us to learn how to be perfect on our own.

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.

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

In the article “ On Being an Atheist,” H.J. McCloskey attempts to inform his readers that the belief in atheism is a “much more comfortable belief” by effectively using a disdainful rhetoric towards theists and their faith. McCloskey delves into both the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, which within he criticizes the arguments and to further his argument against theism, he also presents the Problem of Evil and why evil cannot possibly exist with a perfect God being the creator of universe. What will be displayed in this essay are the counter-arguments to McCloskey’s criticisms and the attempt to discredit his claims that regard the “comfortable” position that lies within atheism and its arguments.

Sir Thomas Aquinas and William Paley present two arguments for the existence of God. Aquinas defines God as omnibenevolent (all good) for his argument, and he continues in “The Five Ways” to present arguments to prove God’s existence (Rosen et al. 11). Paley, on the other hand, primarily defines God as a designer worthy of our admiration for his work (Rosen et al. 27). During class discussion, defining God involved three major qualities: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Both Aquinas and Paley are attempting to prove the existence of the (Christian) God associated with these qualities. Although Aquinas’s “Cosmological Argument” and Paley’s “Argument from Design” have different premises, both have a similar logical gap in their

In J. L. Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence,” the author presents an argument detailing why belief in a both omnipotent and wholly good God is contradictory to a God who allows evil to exist. He utilizes this philosophy to show that God doesn’t exist due to the problem of evil. As Mackie’s delineates in his first paragraph, “I think, however, that a more telling criticism can be made by way of the traditional problem of evil. Here it can be shown, not only that religious beliefs lack rational support, but that they are positively irrational, that the several parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another.” (p. 100) Mackie discusses

In John Hick’s piece “There is a Reason Why God Allows Evil”, he explains his view on the roots of evil. Hick brings up the problem of an all-loving God that allows evil to occur in the world. The conclusion that arises God must not be all loving then. However, Hick explains that humans free will is the problem that leads to evil. A few strengths that Hick has in his argument is the laws of nature, he mentions that they “…would have to be extremely flexible; sometimes gravity would operate, sometimes not; sometimes an object would be hard and solid, sometimes soft. There could be no sciences, for there would be no enduring world structure to investigate” (129). Nothing could hurt anyone or anything, and the world would be some perfect fairytale; “…life would become like a dream in which, delightfully but aimlessly, we would float and drift at ease” (130). Hick goes on to explain that evil allows people to learn what is good, grace and faith. If evil doesn’t exist, then how could one tell the difference from right or wrong? There would be no moral lessons to be taught or learned from since there is no wrong, and wrong an only be done when there is evil. Hick also mentions that bravery, courage and strength would have no point and meaning. Everything that builds character would not exist. The weakness in Hicks argument is that he is blaming free will for the ultimate cause of evil. There are obviously nature disasters that could be considered evil as well. Hick believes that

Stephen Law conducted a thought experiment with a purpose of establishing the existence of an evil God, whereby he challenged those who believed in the presence of a kind and good God, doing nothing evil, and argued that the existent God is wicked indeed. The hypothesis developed into the challenge based on the argument that, if an omnibenevolent God is said to exist, yet there is so much evil in the world, then there is as well a possibility that an evil God exists, yet there is so much good. Law aimed to doubt not the fact of the existence of God, but the generally accepted assumption that the existing God is benevolent. Another researcher, Rowe, refutes this approach, arguing that the existence of a Supreme Being, who created people and hence cares for them, cannot be associated with evil. In fact, the presence of evil is a clear sign of the absence of a God. This paper seeks to take a position opposing to Law’s theory and prove that, despite the presence of evil, an omnibenevolent God still exists.

People believe that if evil exists then so does God, and vice versa. It is also a common belief that this perfect being is the creator of everything and everyone. From atom to atom and from molecule to molecule, he designed all of it. It is also believed that this God has no flaws and is indeed a perfect being. However, some people will tend to disagree. Ernest Nagel, an American philosopher, proposed a series of counterarguments to many classic arguments on behalf of God’s existence. He dismisses arguments such as the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, and the argument of design, by quickly pointing out their flaws. But just as there are people who discredit God’s existence, there are people who argue that he does exist. Richard Swinburne, a British philosopher, provides his own series of arguments on why God exists. Moreover, his arguments are centralized around the problem of evil. In “Why God Allows Evil”, Swinburne discusses rationale behind God allowing evil to exist. To keep it short and sweet, Swinburne believes that there are two types of evils, moral and natural, and that they exist for a reason.

Theist: A negative theodicy is a form of answer which explains why God allows evil and