One might object to the Problem of Evil by giving a theodicy. A theodicy is basically a justification that explains why God allows evil things to happen even though he is all-PGK. In addition, a theodicy is on the “God is all-PGK” side because it might prove that evil is needed in this world in intention of God, and evil is, of course, under control of God. One theodicy is free will. Free will is a gift from God.
JL Mackie was persuasive in his argument by showing that belief in an almighty God is not rational. He proves this by posing the problem of evil. According to JL Mackie, if God exists and is omniscient, omnipotent, and good then evil would not exist. However, evil exists in this world, sometimes in the form of undeserved suffering (diseases that affect humans, earthquakes, famines ...) and others perpetrated by man (murders, wars ...). If God exists and has the capability to be powerful, good, omniscient and omnipotent, why would he let evil be perpetrated?
Moreover, Augustine argues, since it is “God who made human beings good, it is God, not human beings, who restores human beings so that they are good. He sets them free from the evil that they have brought upon themselves, if they will it, believe, and call upon him.” Since we have by our own will brought upon ourselves sin; we cannot be healed from our sin without the grace of
In the dialogue Evodius asks Augustine whether or not God is the creator of evil, in order to answer this Augustine must work with Evodius to determine what evil is and from there who are its creators. Augustine demonstrates that God is not the creator of evil, only just punishment, and the evil humans create is of their own doing, is a form of ignorance, and because evil is punished by God, being evil is harmful to evil beings. Meno’s definition of Virtue at this point in the dialogue states that virtue is “desiring fine things and being able to acquire them” (Baird and Kaufmann, 156). Socrates replies with the observation that it seems some people desire evil, which he defines later on as what brings about unhappiness and misfortune.
Dr. King considered any segregation statutes to be unjust since segregation destroys the soul and damages the personality. To simply put it, any law that degrades human personality is also unjust. He wanted the council to be able to realize that the laws they were creating weren’t laws that were protecting the human
Peter van Inwagen argument entitled “Free Will Defense,” is a theodicy because it attempts to show why God would allow evil in the world as opposed to a defense which would try to explain, logically, how evil could exist in the world with an all-loving an all-powerful God. Peter van Inwagen purposed that, yes, God is all-loving and all-powerful, and because he is all-loving, he allows for humans to make their own decisions even if these decisions lead to evil and pain. I find this to be an extremely satisfying response. It is very plausible that an all-powerful being could and would, in some way, relinquish control as a way to show and practice his love. Autonomy is good, granting free will results in autonomy, therefore granting free will
Atheism 2.0 gives off a more uplifting and positive vibe rather than the tone previously given by New Atheism. Atheism 2.0 does make some arguments but does not outright argue against religion. In a video by The Human Project, they state their disapproval of religion by stating "A 1,000 years ago, we were all God 's creation, except the guys next door were heathens. " The Human Project is pointing out their discontentment with the doctrine of religion and the hypocrisy they see in it. Also, The Human Project in their videos make two statements concerning religion, "How inspired is a trapped soul?"
Questioning if God is not omnipotent, the entire idea of God creating the world can be called into question. Another issue is that if it is said that God is no longer entirely good there is the possibility to say that God has evil or bad intentions, and we should denounce him. Lastly, if one says that evil does not exist, then there is no possible way to separate those people who are considered to be deviants of society. This would mean that those who commit crimes that are evil in nature like murder and rape would be considered to be normal and acceptable.
In this paper, I will begin by stating the Problem of Evil. Following this I will include two objections to the argument and why I find the argument to not be convincing. The Problem of Evil is an argument concerning the existence of God and why God cannot exist because of the presence of evil in the world. The argument begins by saying that God is both all-powerful and wholly good, and that evil exists in the world. However, these statements contradict each other, so all three cannot be true.
that there exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or lesser evil. ”(Rowe 370) In that case, the theists counterargument is as solid as that of the atheists’. With the G.E. Moore shift, the theists are able to argue for God’s existence without denying the premise presented by the atheists.
The problem of evil questions how to reconcile the existence of evil with a God whom is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. If this were true, God would know about evil, would be able to do something, and would want to do something. Yet there is still evil today. The logical problem of evil attempts to prove that the existence of any evil contradicts the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God. If this God exists, then evil does not.