The theological problem of evil refers to the problem that comes with a world that acknowledges an “all good” and “all powerful” God, yet evil and pain are still prominent. If God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, then why does evil still exist? In John Hick’s Evil and the God of Love, Hick attempts to justify the existence of evil in his own Theodicy.
Hick’s “soul-making” theodicy” attempts to defend the existence of God with an understanding and acceptance of the existence of evil. Hick acknowledges that there is a knowledgeable separation between God and people, and he states that people are morally flawed and “immature creatures”. Because of these two statements, Hick thinks God has created people in his image, but not as replicas of
In addition, how can humans treat each other as though another human is just a bug that needs to be exterminated? Through the shocking stories, the reader also begins to question where God is; however, there needs to be a separation of blame. Human’s evil actions are not the responsibility of God. It must be recognized that humans have freewill to choose to do good or evil. Evil is of the world, but since God is not of the world, God is not responsible for the evil in the world.
He argues that if God is perfectly moral, then he must always act in accordance with the moral law, even if this means causing suffering. However, if God is perfectly loving, then he must always act in the best interests of his creation, even if this means breaking the moral law. Rutledge concludes that we must choose between a God who is perfectly moral and a God who is perfectly loving. Rutledge's argument is thought-provoking and challenging. He raises important questions about the nature of God and the relationship between morality and love.
“The Problem of Evil” by Peter van Inwagen, is a series of lectures that that presents van Inwagen’s various responses to problem of evil. In this essay, I will present “the local problem of evil” (from chapter 6 of the book), the solution van Inwagen proposes for this problem, and my critique of his solution. “The local problem of evil,” according to van Inwagen, is the hypothetical response an atheist would have towards van Inwagen’s solution of “the global problem of evil” which is, “If god existed, then why is there so much evil in the world?” The argument of “the local problem of evil” is “If god existed then why are there specific horrors that occur in the world, like children dying in a horrific car crash?” The argument that is drawn
In his book Most Moved Mover, Clark H. Pinnock explains his reasoning for believing in an open God. That is, Pinnock argues for the existence of a God of Christianity that does not determine the future in order to allow for the free will of creatures. Pinnock gives several arguments for the viability of his position by utilizing several sections of scripture to advocate for a more authentic understanding of the God that is revealed via the Bible. Furthermore, Pinnock argues from commonly held understandings of the Doctrine of God by claiming that the problems associated with present doctrine are best solved via the conceptual picture of a God that limits His foreknowledge. By doing this, we, therefore, solve issues related to theodicy in some way and free-will in some ways.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” In a similar vein: If God exists, he is all-knowing, omnipotent, and ethically flawless. If God were all-knowing, God would know about all the terrible occasions that occur in our reality. If God were omnipotent, God would have the capacity to do something.
Not all people have the same definition of evil. Evil can be expressed in many ways. Whether that be describing a person or giving a place a scary setting. Most though, think of evil as a person rather than a place. Those true qualities of evil help show if a person is a human monster.
Is a God unable to suppress the evil or does he have no solution to problem of evil? The thesis posited by Mackie that evil exists and there is no God to stop the evil is still relevant to today. We still have wars, incurable diseases and struggles on this planet.
If we designate the God who punishes His followers as “anti-God,” the rewards to be earned by believing in God in offset by the possibility that the God we believe in is the “anti-God.” Similarly, the losses to be suffered by not believing in God is balanced by the possibility that the God we did not believe in is the “anti-God.” In this way, all possible attributes of God and their opposites essentially cancel the net benefit of each choice to zero. While some may argue that some of these attributes of God are “absurd,” without any prior knowledge of who God is, all attributes of God must be considered as equally
The existence of God has been hotly debated for centuries. With the rise of the theory of evolution and the enlightenment movement, people have moved away from the belief that there is a being who created the universe. Man has conquered the mysteries of science and become confident in his understanding of the world without God. H. J. McCloskey is one such person. He argues in his article, On Being an Atheist, against the classical arguments for the existence of God; namely: the cosmological and teleological arguments.
The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.
EVALUATION ESSAY Which two worldviews you have learned about are most at odds with one another? Why? In my opinion I feel that the two worldviews that I have learned that are most at odds with one another are Christian theism and Naturalism.
On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it. I will begin by stating the objection the anti-theodicist gives for why it is wrong that there is a problem of evil. (<--fix) Regarding passive evil not caused by human action, the anti-theodicist claims that there is an issue with a creator, God, allowing a world to exist where evil things happen, which are not caused by human beings (180-181).
In this reading reflection I will be discussing Richard Swinburne’s argument on “Why God Allows Evil” which starts on page 254 in “Exploring Philosophy: An Anthology” by Steven M. Cahn. This was also discussed in class on 9/15/16. In his argument Swinburne states that “An omnipotent God could have prevented this evil, and surely a perfectly good and omnipotent God would have done so. So why is there evil?”(Swinburne, 254).
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 definition of omnipotent is
However, evil does exist. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist. The evidential problem of evil states that since evil does exists, evidence alone is incompatible with a perfect God, and thus negates the possibility of God 's existence. There exist