The Problem of Evil

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.

Is there any satisfactory way of reconciling the existence of an omnipotent and all-loving God with the existence of natural evil (i.e. evil not due to the misuse of human free will)? One of the central claims of the Judaeo-Christian tradition is the existence of an omnipotent and all-loving God. Against this is the observation that people and animals suffer evil. By common sense, we would infer from this observation that God, as conceived in this tradition, does not exist - for, if He did, He would prevent the evil. This inference is called the Problem of Evil by those who profess one of the religions in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and their attempts to 'solve' the problem have given rise to a labyrinth of sophistry.

In this paper, I will break apart J. L. Mackie’s stern defense of the logical problem of evil, which he uses to suggest the God does not exist. I will attempt to defend the notion that both God and evil, in the form of human creation, can exist in the world by way of suggesting that freewill is the answer. Furthermore, I will strengthen the argument for freewill against Mackie’s defense, which suggests that the argument of freewill also compromises the Omni-three nature of God. In part, I will back freewill by using Mackie’s own logic against him. In its totality, I will build up a strong force against the logical problem of evil, leaving room for both the existence of human formed evil and God in this world under the

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 as suffering is a problem of what to do with the obstacle for the believer but also an obstacle to unbeliever to converge because they do not think it harmonising. In contradiction to compatibility, an atheist often suggested that the present of evil entails the absence of God. Atheist argued, if God exists, then as an omnipotent, he is able to prevent the evil occurrence. For omniscient, it implies under any circumstances evil will occur if he does not act. Then, being perfectly good, he will prevent its occurrence and so evil will not exist. Based on this above proclamation, the existence of God does not compatible with the evil of whatever kind. However, theists response to this logical problem of evil by an atheist is that necessarily perfectly good being, foreseeing the occurrence of evil and able to prevent it, will prevent evil. The essay will first, define what evil is according to Swinburne as one of the philosopher of religion, Second, Swinburne four categories of evil will be discussed (Physical evil, mental evil, state evil, moral evil). Third, Phillip logical and existential problem evil will be discussed through. How will all these above assertions be a problem to those that and does not believe in God.

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

I am arguing that the Logical Problem of Evil (LPE) is not a successful argument to reject the existence of God. This is due to the LPE arguing with an inaccurate definition for the word “good”. With the correct definition of “good,” I will show that an all-good and all-powerful God can logically exist simultaneously with evil. A response for my objection could be the Furthermore, if we allow the inadequate use of the word “evil”, the LPE still does not constitute the immediate rejection of the existence of God due to the concept of free will. A response to this objection is that individual humans are not free and are therefore not morally responsible for their actions. However, I will show that this response fails to disprove the existence of God.

As I wrote in my first paper for this class, “Evil is unique in that it requires justification.” In that essay, by requiring justification, I meant evil seems to challenge the notion that the world is Just in some capital J sense, and so needs to be explained. However there is a second sense in which evil needs to be justified and explained, and whereas the former sense focuses on evil as paradoxical on a global scale, this latter sense focuses on the paradox evil produces on the personal scale. The paradox goes like this: why do good, rational people will evil? For if evil as a notion is both objective and undesirable, then why do people do seemingly evil things? Either, the paradox continues, that which is evil is different for everyone, in which case evil is

Good and evil are often considered to be very different, but are actually quite similar. They are both used to describe people who exceed the expectations of the typical citizen. Those terms describe different sides of the spectrum for the connotation within society with good typically viewed positively by society and evil usually viewed negatively by society. People enjoy believing that the common citizen can accomplish amazing tasks to keep their hope up. However, Socrates believes that only extraordinary people can accomplish extraordinary feats, good or evil, due to their intelligence, nature, and skills.

In this paper, I explain what the problem of evil is under a general scope in order to demonstrate the synthesis of my research. I also describe and evaluate four classic examples of solutions, or attempts, to solve the issues surrounding the problem of evil. These approaches to the problem were discussed in our textbook and include, karma, appeal to sovereignty, the consolation of promise, and dualism. I also include some selective quotations from a variety of scholars that compliment my evaluation and help further illuminate my insights. I discuss the reoccurring theme of possible indifference displayed by God in regards to humankind. I also touch on the possible implications of having an indifferent solution to the problem of evil

The logical problem of evil (double check if name attached like evidential problem) and William Rowe’s evidential argument from evil, show that a rational belief in God is unfeasible due to the evil that exists in the world. The problem of evil is acknowledging the possibility that God, an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being is not actually, all good, all knowing and all powerful. (maybe delete/change highlighted part). If evil exists then how can an omni-natured being exist? (find reference). There are numerous theodicies that argue otherwise, for example, the free will argument and John Hick's soul-making theodicy. However, the problem of evil is still too significant to ignore. (find references).

Where does evil come from? This is a question that I find most interesting. In our modern day civilization educated by liberal institutions everybody speaks as if they are certain of what evil is. So what is it? At first glance the thing that sticks out to me when I hear this question is: Asking where evil comes from is like asking where hunger comes from. Where does the desire for procreation, for sexual reproduction come from? Is a lion evil? I am sure it could be viewed as such in the eyes of a gazelle. Lions kill other lions indiscriminately. They will kill young and old alike in competition for food, mates, or territory. Should every creature have the disposition of a humble lamb? Is a human being killing

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