Evil : Evil And Evil

One of the oldest dilemmas in philosophy is also one of the greatest threats to Christian theology. The problem of evil simultaneously perplexes the world’s greatest minds and yet remains palpably close to the hearts of the most common people. If God is good, then why is there evil? The following essay describes the problem of evil in relation to God, examines Christian responses to the problem, and concludes the existence of God and the existence of evil are fully compatible.

In this paper, I would like to explore several responses to this argument, the nature of evil, and to explain why some evils might be a necessity.

The two solutions to what we call the problem of evil are: the free will defense and the Supralapsarian theodicy. The free will defense argues that evil and God are not incompatible because God didn’t create evil. According to this defense, human beings create evil with the free will that God given them. Since free will must be totally free, God cannot guide us to do what is good only since he wants his creatures to have complete freedom over their lives and what they do. So, by proving that God and evil can coexist logically, the free will defense is a path out of the problem of evil.

Does the problem of evil pose a challenge for theists and the existence of God? The problem of evil argues that there is so much suffering in the world that an all-good and all powerful God would not allow such suffering to exist. Therefore, a God with those characteristics does not exist. Unless the suffering is necessary for an adequate reason. Some people argue that suffering is necessary for there to be good and for us to able to understand what good is. In this paper, I will argue that suffering does not need to exist in order for good to exist, because the existence of good does not depend on suffering. I will then argue that good and suffering are not logical opposites. Finally, I will conclude that since evil is not justified, then the God that we defined does not exist.

An argument against the existence of God is based on the presence of evil in the world. This deductively valid argument is divided into two categories; human action and natural evil (Sober, 2005, p. 120). Human action discusses how experiences makes us better people, while natural evil are tragic events that are not under the control of humans. Each category is used as evidence to refute God as an all-powerful omniscient, omnibenevolent, or omnipotent being. In order to understand the strengths of this argument, it is important for an overall assessment of how the presence of evil questions if a Supreme Being actually exists, by arguing why a being of all-good would allow evil, importance of evil in a good world, and questioning God’s intervention in evil.

The problem of evil is the notion that, how can an all-good, all-powerful, all-loving God exists when evil seems to exist also. The problem of evil also gives way to the notion that if hell exists then God must be evil for sending anyone there. I believe both of these ideas that God can exist while there is evil and God is not evil for sending anyone to hell. I believe hell exists in light of the idea that God is holy and just. The larger is how anyone can go to heaven. I will try to answer the problem of evil with regards to the problem of heaven and hell.

For atheists, apologetics, and non-believers, a big topic of contention is the existence of evil in a world with God. This is known as the problem with evil. How does a God that is all knowing, all powerful, and perfectly good allow such atrocities to occur under his watch? It is this question that so many people have discussed. The argument centers on God being omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good (Mackie, 1955 p. 200). Omnipotent is to be all powerful. Omniscient is to be all knowing and to be perfectly good means that God would prevent a morally bad event from ever happening (Swinburne, 1998 p. 13). In the problem of evil, God’s powers are taken at face value, and applied to God’s inaction to evil on earth. People who argue against the topic of evil typically make generalizations on the attributes that God

The second chapter found in The Problem of Evil, begins to address the logical problem of evil. Within this chapter Evans breaks down Alvin Plantinga and the free-will defense. Here Evans compares the logical arguments of J.L. Mackie and Alvin Plantinga. Mackie uses a deductive argument to state that if God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good, then evil cannot exist. This would be a contradiction to logic. Plantinga provides a valid argument involving free will to make the case for the existence for evil. Evans uses the remainder of the chapter to compare and contrast the two views.

Problem of Evil Throughout our lives, we experience and observe occurrences that seem to be good and others that seem to be evil. Some of us grew up in church and believed that God has a purpose or plan for all the circumstances that we experience, good or bad. Others don’t believe in a creator or God and instead live with the assumption that life is great at times and at other times is terrible, without rhyme or reason. The problem of evil seems to ultimately criticise God and christian beliefs.

In Chapter Seven, The Problem of Evil from “The Sacred Quest: An Invitation to the Study of Religion” by Lawrence Cunningham and John Kelsay the authors examine various possible reasons for why evil exists. I will be examining further the information provided in this Chapter in order to attempt to answer the question, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” First, I will provide my point of view on what I consider to be evil and good. Next, I will explain why I believe in the appeal to sovereignty view and how it applies to the ultimate question. Finally, I will provide counterarguments to my explanation.

The problem of evil is, perhaps, the predominant theological concern for any religion that affirms the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. Although the problem of evil does not and cannot rebut the existence of God, it does however, establish an inconsistency with God's perfect attributes. The problem of evil almost always ask these questions in one form or another: If God is perfect, why is there innocent suffering? Given the qualities attributed to God, is there any way to reconcile the suffering of the innocent? Specifically, if God is able to prevent the suffering of the innocent, yet chooses not to, then He is not omnibenevolent.

In chapter three of Aquinas for Armchair Theologians, Timothy M. Renick asks some very interesting questions: Why is there Evil? Do humans have Free Will? (Renick, 2002). The chapter begins question why evil exists in the world when God is all-powerful and all-knowing. Renick goes on to discuss how God is often questioned on his power by allowing evil to exist.

William Rowe defines gratuitous evil as an instance of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.(Rowe 335) In a world with so much evil it raises the questions If God is all powerful, all knowing and all good, how can he allow bad things to happen to good people? Can God even exist in a world with so such gratuitous evil? These are questions that has afflicted humanity for a very long time and has been the question to engross theologians for centuries. The existence of evil has been the most influential and powerful reason to disprove the existence of God. It is believed among many theist that God is the creator and caretaker

The problem of evil has been around since the beginning. How could God allow such suffering of his “chosen people”? God is supposedly all loving (omni-benevolent) and all powerful (omnipotent) and yet He allows His creations to live in a world of danger and pain. Two philosophers this class has discussed pertaining to this problem is B.C. Johnson and John Hick. Johnson provides the theists’ defense of God and he argues them. These include free will, moral urgency, the laws of nature, and God’s “higher morality”. Hick examines two types of theodicies – the Augustinian position and the Irenaeus position. These positions also deal with free will, virtue (or moral urgency), and the laws of nature. Johnson

In other words, some people refer to evil as sin and suffering; others think of it as a separation from God while still more people personify it in the form of satan. My purpose here is not to discuss what form evil may take in an individual's life even though it may come up periodically. The central fact remains that evil, in one form or another, does exist and anyone not willing to believe in this reality quite frankly lives in a different dimension. Either that, or they simply live in a total state of denial! Keeping all this in mind, what I want to accomplish in this paper is to first explore the idea that evil is a relative term that exists within the context of each situation. Ah, yes! Even as I wrote that last sentence, I could see the wheels turning in your head. But not to worry. I will clarify soon. From this point, I will seek the wisdom of people who have tried to answer these tough questions proposed on the first page, come to some more conclusions through personal interviews and then end on a more personal note, using the help of my life experience as a Christian. This topic hits me hard at times. I often find myself in reflection, trying to formulate an answer to the evil that I see, and yes, the evil that I do. This evil will sometimes leave me feeling totally powerless and at its mercy. Yet I never give up hope for I know that just through the process of writing this paper, some new insights will be