The existence of God is challenged in great detail when the Problem of Evil is discussed. A theist is someone who believes in God and in theism there is a coherent concept of God. A theist believes that God is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being. All these things describe God as all powerful, all knowing and all good/perfect being. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist and they believe that those beliefs of a theist cannot all be true at the same time. The Problem of Evil challenges all these beliefs of theism. This paper will defend the Problem of Evil by discussing the flaws in theism along with asking the question if an all-powerful, all knowing, all good God exists then why would God allow such evil in the world. …show more content…
The Problem of Evil is a valid argument against God’s existence that premises states that there are occasions where intense suffering exists in the world in which an all-powerful being could have prevented without having a loss of a greater good. An all-powerful, knowing, perfect being would prevent any instance of suffering unless the being could not do so without losing some form of good and allowing some evil. The conclusion that follows is that God does not exist (Rowe 335-336). All the evil and suffering in the world should be prevented if God is supposedly an omnipotent or all-powerful being. Premise two states that “only if an omniscient, wholly good being permits intense suffering then either there is some greater good that would have been loss, or some equally bad or worse evil that would have occurred, had the intense suffering been prevented” (Rowe 336-337). This looks at at things in …show more content…
This can be considered to be a flaw in theism to atheists as well. Evil is the cause of human’s free choices or free will. God is the being held accountable for humans free will allowing them to make their own choices and these choices are sometimes seen to be evil. Mackie questions this by asking, “if God has made men such that in their free choices they sometimes prefer what is good and sometimes what is evil, why could he not have made men such that they always freely choose the good?” (209). This does not make God perfectly good because he made humans able to freely choose and sometimes humans choose evil. If God were a perfectly good being then human’s free choices would always be for the good. This also concludes that God is not all knowing because he cannot control the free choices humans make (Mackie 210). A theist could argue that God doesn't create evil since humans freely choose evil but it cannot be avoided without depriving us humans of our free will. There is no way that God can limit freedom in any way and still provide significant moral freedom. This argument is considered a problem because it only preserves God’s goodness regarding moral evil done by humans. This leaves no explanation for natural evil such as hurricanes destroying entire cities or natural forest fires killing off hundreds of poor defenseless animals. These natural evils cause
The problem of evil is an intellectual difficulty to cope with existence of evil and that of the God who is omnipotent and perfectly good. People using the problem of evil to criticize theism often claim that the following three premises:
Many of us question why we live in a universe full of sin and evil? We question if our god is good why is our natural world filled with suffering, violence and destruction? This is where the theodicy problem comes into play, Theodicy is an attempt to explain why a good god would have created evil and suffering. Atheists don’t believe in God for this matter, since evil exists they assume God must not. I believe that we were all blessed with the ability to choose and we can still make our own choices. What God did was he created mankind with free will, it can't be logical for a man to remain sin free when they are making their own choices. So we can make our choices moral, immoral, or amoral. Immoral acts result in evil, if God intervened it
The article Evil and Omnipotence and The Argument from Evil tie in together. They both argue the existence of evil and God in one way or another. The article Evil and Omnipotence has three main points. Point one states that “God is omnipotent”, meaning that he can do anything that is not impossible.
On the topic of the existence of God, Ernest Nagel and Richard Swinburne have construct arguments that challenge one another. In Nagel’s article, “Does God Exist?” he argues that if God is all-powerful, omniscient, and benevolent; he would know when evil occurs and has the power to prevent it. Because evil occurs, God does not exist. This is the problem of evil. Challenging Nagel, the article by Swinburne, “Why God Allows Evil,” argues that God has the right to allow moral and natural evils to occur because those evils reap greater goods that make the lives of human-beings meaningful. He extends his argument to the idea that God seeks to provide human beings with goods such as freewill and responsibility of not only ourselves, but of the world and others. While Nagel utilizes the problem of evil as an objection to the existence of God, Swinburne employs it to show that God allows evil to occur to provide human beings with goods that go beyond moments of pleasure and joys of happiness.
In J. L. Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence,” the author presents an argument detailing why belief in a both omnipotent and wholly good God is contradictory to a God who allows evil to exist. He utilizes this philosophy to show that God doesn’t exist due to the problem of evil. As Mackie’s delineates in his first paragraph, “I think, however, that a more telling criticism can be made by way of the traditional problem of evil. Here it can be shown, not only that religious beliefs lack rational support, but that they are positively irrational, that the several parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another.” (p. 100) Mackie discusses
Evil cannot be justified within a theistic framework. Five ideas attempts to argue the existence of evil coincide within a theistic framework. However, all five ideas are flawed and cannot justify how evil can exist within a theistic framework. Counter argument against the five ideas will be discussed below.
Argument Evaluation, Nagel: Evil in the Face of God’s Benevolence In “Does God Exist?” Nagel explores the various criticisms against theism. One claim that Nagel examined is known as the “evil is only an illusion” argument, an argument that strives to remedy the problem of evil. In this theistic thesis, it is believed that evil does not exist, at least, not the way it is colloquially defined.
Christians believe in a God who is Omni benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Since there is evil in the world atheist believe one or all of the following: God is not good and therefore responsible for the evil in the world, he is not omniscient and did not know what would happen, he is not omnipotent and couldn’t prevent evil, or he does not exist. This research paper will discuss the three arguments for the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument, The Syllogism Argument, and The Moral argument.
In addition, the argument succeeds in showing that even though atheist believes that God does not exist because he allows evil and suffering. The theist response to the problem of evil makes one understand that God gives one the power of free will to make decision on their own, he allows people to exercise their free will. The free will illustrates that God allows evil for the sake of human free will. The concept implies that an omnipotent God does not assert its power to intervene in choice. Evil occurs because God does not want to compromise this free will be preventing evil. He could not eliminate evil and suffering without eliminating the greater good of having created beings with free will.
There are many questions today as to the theodicy problem and why bad things happen. In this paper, I write about my approach to the problem of evil and why bad things happen to good people. This paper responds to the problem of evil in five ways. First we perceive God as an evil God, and we define the nature of evil. Free will, natural evil and life values are also seen as a resolution to the problem of evil.
Throughout this essay I will be assessing the question “Does the problem of evil argument show that God Does not exist” and I aim to show how it proves that god Does not exist. I aim to do so by analyzing the problem of evil arguments premises and conclusion as well as assessing the following arguments and objections: Necessary evil; The free will defense; the problem of natural evil, logical argument and the evidential argument.
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.
The "greater good" style of theodicy hinges, to a large extent, upon our sense of God's omniscience. If our intellectual capacity is infinitely less than that of God and the comparison of anything finite, such as human intelligence, to something infinite like the omniscience of God then it stands to reason that the existence of evil may be part of some larger scheme which eludes our understanding. Any Christian theodicy
Evil cannot be disproven and it is beneficial to existence overall. Atheists and Christians alike may be troubled is the question of why evil exist? Why does God let evil exist? If he is all-powerful and good why would he do that? The idea of a forgiving omnipotent God allowing the presence of moral evil seems conflicting. We are created in his image, if God is good why do we tend to sin? To understand this it is important to know the distinctions between the two primary categories of evil. Theologians and Philosophers such as Aquinas or Nietzsche recognize that with
The problem of evil is the argument that if God is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and benevolent. This implies that if God exists then he knows how to, wants to, and can prevent all suffering. If such a God existed, though, then he would prevent all types of evil. Although evil in all forms is an everyday part of the world around us; it has not been prevented. Therefore, God does not exist. More precisely if God exists then he is all-knowing, almighty, and perfectly good, if God were these then the world would not contain evil. There is evil in the world both moral and natural, so God does not exist. If God does exist, then there would be no evil. The existence of evil makes Gods existence rationally impossible.