The Problem Of Good And Evil

owe to prove his thesis about the problems of evil and atheism, Rowe asks three fundamental questions. The first question, “is there an argument for atheism based on the problem of evil that could rationally justify atheism?” Supporting his question, Rowe by uses the idea of human and animal suffering.is it reasonable for omnipotent, omniscient being(s) to permits its creation to suffer by extinguish each other for their own personal benefits. If there is such a thing as an omnibenevolent, omnipotent holy being how come the ultimate and unescapable suffering is this world has no vanish. How good is a god(s) that permits humanity to suffer greatly? In religious Christian Bible study, Jesus, many times referred to as god, vanish evil from

Before we can dive into the problem of evil, we must define a term. Whenever the word “God” is used in this paper, it is referring to the classical theistic conception of God. In this view of God, God is that, “than which nothing greater can be conceived” in your mind. Any attributes or qualities that make a being great, God has to the maximum. This means that, among many other qualities, God is benevolent(all good), omnipotent(all powerful), and omniscient(all knowing). Furthermore, God is the creator of the universe and is personally connected to the human race.

The book To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee is often associated with a various number of themes such as racism, social inequality, the importance of family values, and much more. But one of the more hidden messages of the book centers around the idea that there is a coexistence of good and evil. This theme is really brought to life the more the reader is able to understand the book. Through sub themes such as coming of age, perspective, and intense characterization of many important characters the idea of good and evil is really brought to light.

In the course of this essay I will argue that evil is not compatible with the existence of god. This means that evil and God cannot coexist because if god were present, the existence of evil would contradict all that god is believed to be. Abrahamic religions insist that God both created the world and that he preserves and maintains it. Christianity claims that God is all knowing and is boundless in his abilities. Religions claim that God is benevolent, and only wants the best for humanity and the universe, as his creations. If all of the above statements be true, then it is hard to understand why god would allow evil to thrive right from the beginning of time.

Another attempt at total refutation of LPE would be through the invocation of the Ontological Argument. In simplest terms, the argument makes the case that the very idea of God proves His existence. Put another way, because the idea of God (the Greatest Conceivable Being) can be imagined, He must exist, lest the thought of the Greatest Conceivable Being contradict itself (for existence is greater than non-existence). In regards to LPE, the Ontological Argument shows “not merely that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being, but that it is necessary that such a being exists;” so much so in fact, that the proposition that God does not exist must have zero probability regardless of the body of evidence, including the existence of evil. The argument has been largely dismissed however, because it allows for the construction of mutually incompatible conclusions (such the existence of a perfect

J. L. Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence” criticizes the argument that God exists by showing that religious beliefs are positively irrational and that parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another. The problem of evil is one of the oldest problems in philosophy. The problem of evil is a logical problem for only the people who believe that there is a God who is both (1) omnipotent and (2) wholly good; yet (3) evil exists in the world. If God is wholly good and omnipotent, then how can there be a presence of evil in the world. Given the presence of evil, we must either conclude that God does not have the power to prevent the suffering that evil causes in which case God is not omnipotent or that God does not wish

When we are discussing the problem of evil, we are specifically discussing a God that is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. A God that is perfectly good would not allow suffering to exist, and any minute amount of suffering that exists disproves God’s existence. Unless, the suffering is justified with an adequate reason. However, even then there seems to be large amounts of evil in the world that seems unnecessary for any good reason. By evil and suffering I mean death, pain, and disease. I will be using these terms interchangeably. In the problem of evil, many arguments are placed in order to find a justification for the evil that exists. However,

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

with some evil in it. Better? Why would God being so good and concerned about

The logical problem of evil is often referred to as the inconsistent triad, this being that the following propositions; God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and evil exists, are inconsistent. Also known as a reduction ad absurdum argument, whereby all three propositions cannot be true together. Theists, like Swinburne, come to the conclusion that the three propositions are compatible with one another, whereas atheists, like Mackie, believe that they are incompatible and therefore God does not exist. I shall be arguing in line with Swinburne’s view, describing the following defenses, indicating that there is no logical problem of evil.

(1) According to Buddhist beliefs, there is neither a soul nor an essential self. Karma is understood as good or bad intentional actions performed in the mind, body, and speech. Good intentions will lead to good consequences and bad intentions will lead to bad consequences. Therefore, good karma is better than bad karma, but no karma is better than good karma. The intentions performed in a small scale will affect a person’s life on a large scale. Each person is the cause of what he or she reaps in the world. The individual is responsible for his or her own karmic results. The way in which they think, the physical action that they perform, and what they say further affect karmic intentions and results. By knowing this, a person can change his or her behavior in an attempt to achieve good karmic results. In Buddhist Literature, there is a list of ten meritorious deeds:” generosity, morality, meditation, reverence, service, transference of merit, rejoicing in others’ merit, hearing the doctrine, teaching the doctrine, and straightening one’s views.” By completing at least one of the ten meritorious deeds, a person can experience good karma. For instance, if we are kind and help someone in need of help, whether or not we know him or her, then that is good karma. If someone is sick or injured and we offer them help to get better, then that is good karma. On the other hand, if we curse because we miss the bus or the bus is late to bring us to school or work, then this is bad

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

Stephen Law conducted a thought experiment with a purpose of establishing the existence of an evil God, whereby he challenged those who believed in the presence of a kind and good God, doing nothing evil, and argued that the existent God is wicked indeed. The hypothesis developed into the challenge based on the argument that, if an omnibenevolent God is said to exist, yet there is so much evil in the world, then there is as well a possibility that an evil God exists, yet there is so much good. Law aimed to doubt not the fact of the existence of God, but the generally accepted assumption that the existing God is benevolent. Another researcher, Rowe, refutes this approach, arguing that the existence of a Supreme Being, who created people and hence cares for them, cannot be associated with evil. In fact, the presence of evil is a clear sign of the absence of a God. This paper seeks to take a position opposing to Law’s theory and prove that, despite the presence of evil, an omnibenevolent God still exists.