Plantinga briefly suggests the possibility of free non-human beings, such as fallen angels or evil spirits, bearing responsibility for natural evil. From this, he appears to attribute natural evil to moral actors that humans are unaware of. One might conclude that Plantinga claims all evil is inevitably moral in nature, just that it is not in the power of humans to know better. Hence, the existence of natural evil is a mere matter of
The Problem of Evil “Evil has no positive nature but the loss of good has received the name of evil” said St. Augustine.The problem comes from the fact that if there is a deity that is all good, all knowing and all powerful, how can evil exist? The problem of evil (or argument from evil) is the problem of reconciling the existence of the evil in the world with the existence of an omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful) and perfectly good God. The argument from evil is the atheistic argument that the existence of such evil cannot be reconciled with, and so disproves, the existence of such a God. Therefore, the “problem of evil” presents a significant issue. Mackie theorizes there is no possibility all three facts can be true and coexist together.
The logical form of the problem pertains to the view that “the existence of evil in our world is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God.” This form is demonstrated by the statement, “An omnipotent, omniscient, good being will prevent the occurrence of any evil whatever.” In other words, an existence of a God who has these qualities of being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent is logically inconsistent to the thought that evil exist granting these qualities He possess. On the other hand, the evidential form of the problem of evil refers to the view that “the variety and profusion of evil in our world, although not logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God provides, nevertheless, rational support for Atheism, for the belief that the theistic God does not exist.” This form of problem is basically about the suffering that people experiences in the world which can be considered evil for serving no purpose at all. Though there are sufferings which are considered to be evil since all for form of suffering are evil but still it brings about good consequences, so that they are considered justifiable. However, pertaining to the occurrence of sufferings that are pointless such as the killing of a one-year-old child evidently proves that God does not exist since if he exists he should have prevented pointless sufferings to
At the same time, suffering remains always a mystery to understand. But suffering could be understood when it is connected with redemption. For Aquinas, evil is the privation of good, as is seen above, there immediately arises the question whether is it absolute privation? If it is absolute privation how could it bring something good out of evil? Pope John Paul II says that evil is privation, but it becomes not as the total privation or total absence of good.
In On Free Will, Augustine comes to a very similar conclusion. 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.
The big question to ask yourself people of the jury is, “If God is all good and powerful, then where does evil come from. God cannot be the creator of evil if he is all good. If he is all good and powerful and he did create evil, then why does he not get rid of
To start with, humanity is both good and evil, both spirit and body and both material and immaterial. Humanity seems to be in revolt against both God and humanity. Then, God is deus duplex, meaning that while He provides grace and mercy through Jesus Christ, there is wrath and darkness in the world. The world is equally a paradox, therefore, both have been created and has fallen, both are good and corrupt and has the potential for good and evil. And despite all of this, God can still do good in the evil world and culture … which He, by the way,
Good and Evil Are not Real The concept of good and evil is one of the most foundational apothegms ever known to humankind. It was a crucial stepping stone for other morals, and it is what averts society from pandemonium, by providing structures for laws. But, one may ask oneself; where did the conceptualization of good and evil arise? I believe that good and evil does not exist and are entirely artificial. Ludicrous is what one might be thinking after I’ve stated such a radical exposition, but I disagree and can justify my argument with factual evidence.
On the other hand, if God come from a less perfect being, it would mean that the idea of perfection precedes imperfection does not follow through. Either possibilities defeats Descartes’s God’s argument because it contradicts with the two ideas thereby undermining Descartes’s use of reason. This is because Descartes heavily emphasizes on reasoning and evidently use reasoning to formulate his two ideas of “something must come from something” (Bennet 2004, 12) and perfection precedes imperfection. Ultimately, if Descartes way of reasoning is unable to reconcile the two ideas that he has formulated, then it would be difficult for him to prove God’s
As described above, all doctrines have their own merits. However, as for my thoughts, I believe that when sin entered the world, it brought death and sorrow. This was not in God’s initial plan. Different doctrines categorize sin as either a depiction of humanity’s true nature or the falling away from communion with God. What all this point to is the lack of godliness in man.
The difficult of evil exists undoubtedly the leading problem to trust in the being of God. The dispute from cruel or problem of evil is the dispute that an omnipotent, omniscient, and flawlessly moral God would not let someone or definite types of evil or grief to happen. Only individuals who have faith that there exists a Deity who is both all-powerful and wholly good are bothered by the problem of evil. The issue of evil grips all five of the subsequent propositions are: First, God is entirely moral; He wishes the supreme on behalf of everybody in the universe, Second, God is all-powerful; it means that He can do what is logically impossible, God can do all He wants, Third, Evil subsists; “Evil” signifies whichever deficiency in the world,
What is the problem of evil? What are the problems that J.L. Mackie finds with the freewill solution to the problem of evil? Are there possible solutions to the problems that Mackie raises? The customary contentions for the presence of God have been reasonably completely scrutinized by rationalists.
I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist. At the beginning of the article, Mackie states that the initial issue with God’s existence is that, “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, Paragraph 3). If god is such a pure and good being, then he should be able to combat all evil. The first statement that showcases that God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, then evil cannot possibly exist.
The Great Awakening unleashed a new wave of conversions driven by a desire to be cleansed of sin and avoid eternal punishment. These beliefs depend on a fear of God rather than sole worship, as He is portrayed to be a spiteful, all-powerful being. In my teaching, the fear of God was not placed within me. Instead, a deeper trust in God’s saving powers was instilled upon my beliefs, which attempted to draw belief from love rather than fear. God was portrayed as an all-loving being attempting to free us from the control of sin, which quite evidently contradicts the image of a vengeful God.
If God is omnipresent (everywhere present), omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing), and wholly good, why does he not do anything about it? To further understand how to deal with suffering, one must explore suffering’s origin and what it means to suffer. What is suffering then? “Simply stated, suffering is anything which hurts or irritates” and “covers a wide spectrum; it can be pain or grief even emotional pain on a personal level”