Kaufman's Argument For The Problem Of Evil

A lot of arguments have been known to prove or disprove the existence of God, and the Problem of Evil is one of them. The Problem of Evil argues that it is impossible to have God and evil existing in the same world. Due to ideal characteristics of God, evil should not have a chance to exist and make human suffer. In this essay, I will examine the argument for the Problem of Evil, a possible theodicy against the argument, and reply to the theodicy.

William Rowe addresses the problem of evil through an examination of the relationship between the existence of evil with an omnibenevolent, omniscient creator. His argument stems from the notion that because human and animal suffering is so intense, an atheist is rational in their belief and that the co-existence of evil and God is unlikely.

“The Problem of Evil” is simply the question, why does God allow evil to happen? God is omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, and rational, therefore why does evil exist? There is either no God or he is not what we think he is, since evil could be prevented by him with no risk. Atheists and anti-theodicist see a problem with the idea that God could prevent evil. They believe that because God is so powerful and perfect, that he would not allow such immoral actions to be done.

Introduction The problem of evil has been a major concern in the human race with various attempts being made to reconcile the belief in God with the existence of evil in this world. The Christian conception of God as supremely good and powerful has made the problem of evil to be very difficult simply because such a being will make the world a better place than it is by preventing evil from causing pain and suffering to humanity. Both Christianity and Judaism face a great challenge to solve the issue of evil and its existence because of the impact of evil that the holocaust caused on millions of people. Scholars have devoted their time to account for the horrifying events that took place during the holocaust by examining different theodicy

The logical argument concerning the problem of evil stems from two propositions that seem difficult to hold true at the same time: there exists an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God and there are great amounts of suffering and evil in the world. This argument concludes that since there is moral and natural evil in the world, that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God cannot exist since an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God would not create evil, or would at least seek to destroy it. To argue against this, the free-will defense is used. The free-will defense is successful as it provides a reason for moral evil, but it fails to address natural evil. However, it is still logically consistent to believe in

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.

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.

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.

Part XI begins with Philo’s breakdown of what are, in his perspective, the four causes of natural evil. These causes, in Philo’s opinion, disprove the existence of an omnipotent and infinitely good god, for if god was all-good and all-powerful, then these grounds would not exist in our universe. INSERT CITATION Once he gives his reasoning for how these causes disprove an omnipotent and infinitely good god, Philo then states what he believes these four causes to be.

An argument from the divine hiddenness states; if there were an omniGod there would be no non-culpable disbelief, there is non-culpable disbelief, therefore there is no omniGod. I intend to look at this argument in further detail and attempt to find evidence on whether or not this argument should be accepted by focusing on the first premise and trying to see if it is accurate, whilst also discussing the plausibility of premise two. Traditional theism holds that god has three Omni qualities this is where the term omiGod derives from. When speaking about a God in this essay I will be referring to a God one who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Meaning he has power, has knowledge and goodness to the highest degree possible.

So the first cause argument proves that God does not exist assuming the first cause argument is sound then there must be some other cause because it is not God. In summary the notion of omnipotent is a miss-name because it implies the potency, power, causality when in fact all that it does is imply logical entailment, it implies that if it wills something you can deduce from the statement that something exists, you do not need a causal step, it is a logical deduction and therefore the first cause argument argues from causes in the world

Despite this, because of reason and what God is envisioned to be, I agree with conclusions that Aquinas has made. Renick begins by asking the question “Why is there evil in the world?” The answer given by many Christians is that Satan is the reason evil exists since he corrupts God’s creation and history through Eden. Initially, I believed the same thing.

Another Milestone that effects the way we define the notion of “Good and Evil” is largely based on our religion. Therefore, the way we see right from wrong, heaven and hell, light and darkness, Good vs. Evil and God and the Devil comes from the moral criterion that we attempt to apply to our worldviews. However, given the conspicuous contrasts amongst religions, ranging from Christianity to Islam to Judaism. Many people believe that due to the simple fact of religious diversity, this provides the basis to discredit any assumption of moral truths. Some religions define evil as “the result of human sin” or that “Evil is the result of a spiritual being who opposes the Lord God”

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.

Evil is a simple word that we learn at a young age and that we understand is bad. However, our youth and innocence prevents us from knowing the weight the word holds. As our understanding of evil develops, we begin to see evil all around us. Although we hold common societal definitions of evil, each person is bound to view evil slightly different from others. Someone might consider alcoholism evil, while others consider it normal: someone might believe racism is evil, while others believe it is natural. Evil is unique to each individual, how people were raised and what they were exposed to will alter their definition of evil. However, people generally agree that homicide, rape, torture, genocide, and terrorism are all evil. Causing agony or suffering is considered evil. Manipulating the weak or manipulating children, in any way, is considered evil. Despite our societal understanding that these acts are evil and that evil is bad, we witness evil nearly every day. This unconformity, these people knowing what is evil yet still doing the evil, cannot be explained simply.