This is in contrast to ‘moral evil’, which refers to evil stemming from human action or inaction. As summarized by Plantinga (1977, p. 58), his defense suggests that God must create free beings capable of moral evil in order to create free beings capable of moral good. These beings cannot be prevented from doing evil
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.
In this essay, I will show that Immanuel Kant is wrong to think that the only good without limitation is the good will. My first step in defending this thesis will be to review Kant ’s argument about how the good will is intrinsically good. I will then try to undermine his view by showing it supports implausible claims. For example, the premise of Kant’s claim is that good will is unconditioned.
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.
Defining the boundaries of where these sciences take authority is definitely a limitation. Regarding this, bias is another limitation that this model has to deal with. In regards to this, bias can be implemented when someone favors one of the two sciences over the other in a way that creates an unbalance. The Allies model does not serve either science, but rather, it serves God and God alone. In that, God has created both sciences and hold them in an equal stance.
Furthermore, defenders of the divine command theory like Alston have faced the Euthyphro dilemma by says that although God’s commands make right actions right, God is morally perfect and hence would never issue unjust or immoral commandments. On their eyes, God’s nature is the standard of moral goodness, and God’s commands or words are the origin of all obligation and kindness.(Jeremy Koons, n.d.) One well-known objection to divine will/divine command moral theories is that they commit us to the view that God’s will is arbitrary, and the arbitrary will of God is not a plausible basis for morality.(Thomas,
This is because critics may question the origins of God based on Descartes’s claim that perfection precedes imperfection and “something must come from something”. (Bennet 2004, 12) It is important to note that perfection in itself reaches a limit because it is incapable of improving further, thus when God possesses the sum of all possible perfections, it would mean that God does not have potential for anymore improvements. This presents a dilemma for Descartes because if God is already perfect, and perfection is viewed to be a form limit itself, then there must be no being who is more perfect than God himself. However, since everything has a cause, God must have origins as well.
Not addressing such a statement illustrates the contradictory nature of Plato 's philosophical beliefs. An example can be illustrated with the address of religion. It is argued that having a system of belief is more important than whether or not that system is true. That being said, regardless of whether a belief or system is true or false, one should still possess the right to evaluate it so. This however raises a possible division of belief (non unification) and as a result may corrupt society as it lacks unity.
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
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.
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.
The Agents of Good and Evil There is this belief that the Christian God is good and all-powerful. He has the power to create worlds and beings, yet there is still evil in the world. Both Pierre Bayle and Voltaire address these questions in their works “Paulicians” and Candide (respectively). They both believe the Manichean philosophy as a more rational thought process than the contemporaneous Christian view. This belief is that there is not one, but two gods in the world; a god of good and a god of evil.
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.