Tornadoes, earthquakes, typhoons, tsunamis, and other things of that nature occur all around the world, and these forces of nature strike everywhere with no regard to religion, race, or socio-economic status. Everyday moral decisions are made and people decide whether to steal, cheat, harm others, lie, and behave in a way unacceptable to society. However, natural evils, in contrast, are forces that humans cannot control. So how can there be a God that exists, which is said to be wholly good, omnipotent, and omniscient, allow such natural evils to occur?
Gottfried Leibniz would argue that there is a greater good that would outweigh this evil, yet J. Mackie claims that this "greater good" only leads to a greater evil.
Though many arguments can be made for or against the presence of natural evils, I truly believe that the side of Leibniz is based truly on a faith. Though there is no logical explanation for why God would allow natural evils to exist in the world, theodicists would simply argue that humans, in our finite understanding, could not possibly comprehend the will of a being who is infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent.
Therefore, the term faith, which could be said to mean believing without any physical evidence, would be the main hold of the theodicist argument. Anti-theodicists would claim that this argument is invalid and unsubstantiated because a God who is wholly good would not create or allow for any evil whether moral or natural to exist. As the sides of both Leibniz and Mackie are presented, these matters will be discussed more thoroughly. The main point of Leibniz's philosophy is that God, in creating the world, He created the best of all possible worlds.
Leibniz denies the premises 1 whoever does not choose the best is lacking in power, knowledge, or goodness 2 God did not choose the best in creating the world 3 Therefore, God has been lacking in power, knowledge, or goodness. Leibniz's argument is one of optimism. He did not argue the perfection of the world or that evil was non-existent, but his argument was merely positively looking at the world created and relating that to God's goodness, omnipotence, and His constant concern with His creation.
His argument was optimistically pointing to being able to see God's Divine plan in its totality and not judging by solitary parts.
Several contemporary philosophers of religion have offered 'solutions' the problem of evil which insist that the world would actually be worse off than it currently is if there were no evil in it. Although John Hick's soul-making theodicy is the most prominent example of such a solution, Clement Dore has recently offered a theodicy that Weisberger dubs "the pollution solution.
But as Weisberger points out, Dore fails to answer the critical question: Why couldn't God have created "nonpolluting" natural machinery? On the face of it, there is no reason to believe that such a world is logically impossible, and Dore offers no evidence to the contrary. The Problem of Evil: Because there is so much relevant evidence, it is hard to be certain that the best explanation of so much horrible suffering and some remarkable and beneficial events is that there is no God but people are sometimes lucky.
But such an explanation seems better than one that says that God intervenes and sometimes helps bring about good outcomes and other times allows bad outcomes for reasons beyond our ken. That theistic explanation has two strikes against it in that we cannot understand how an immaterial being can act on the material world, and it posits the existence of hidden reasons, those beyond our ken. Whether it has three strikes against it depends on whether luck is an adequate explanation of events like the saving of the nine miners in Pennsylvania, the so-called Quecreek Miracle.
Adams's Theodicy of Grace by Richard M. Adams, in a brilliant, thought-provoking essay, 'Must God Create the Best? It makes available to God the following excuse for creating free beings who produce a less favorable balance of moral good over moral evil than that which would have been realized by other free beings he could have created: So don't bug me about why I permitted there to be moral evil, or at least more moral evil than was required, given what my options were.
In this review of Ted Drange's Nonbelief and Evil , Charles Echelbarger outlines the contribution that the book makes to the philosophy of religion literature, comparing it to the work of other nontheistic philosophers of religion and noting Drange's emphasis on the different conceptions of God that comprehensive nontheistic arguments must address.
He then turns to a discussion of Drange's two main arguments, the argument from evil and the argument from nonbelief, noting that Drange finds the latter superior to the more traditional argument from evil. He also notes that, on Drange's view, the argument from nonbelief has no force against the existence of the sort of remote Creator envisioned by radical deism.
Jordan Howard Sobel's Logic and Theism is long, abstruse, and technical, but valuable for those who have an interest in its topics. Those looking for arguments based on empirical phenomena said to be best explained by the God hypothesis should look elsewhere. Sobel's focus is, rather, issues of definition and logical structure. He addresses everything from the ontological argument to the fine-tuning argument, demolishing all of the main arguments for God's existence. Moreover, he argues that the kind of omnipotence and omniscience that theists ascribe to God is incoherent, and defends both evidential and logical arguments from evil against the existence of God.
Finally, he turns to a discussion of practical reasons for belief in God, such as those invoked by Pascal's wager. No cutting-edge research on these topics should omit Sobel's work. If God is all-powerful, then he can prevent evil; and if he is as good as can be, then he will prevent it. Why, then, does evil exist? The existence of evil implies that either God is not all-powerful, or he is not perfectly good.
And if the traditional God must be both, then the existence of evil entails that such a God does not exist. Unless, of course, God has some morally sufficient reason for permitting evil—to prevent even greater evils, perhaps, or to enable some greater good.
But examples of apparently pointless evils could be multiplied indefinitely, and some evils are so egregiously awful that no conceivable attendant good would be great enough to justify permitting them. But perhaps there are attendant goods that we, with our finite minds, simply cannot conceive. Perhaps; but this solution comes at a price. If we can have no inkling of what God would permit to happen, then we can equally have no inkling of whether God does, or even could, exist.
An excellent, fictional introduction to the problem of evil and twelve theistic responses to the problem. The terrorist tragedy will help us step beyond yesterday's God, beyond pious delusions. This is the transcript of a speech given before the Atheist Alliance Convention.
Smith discusses two ways to prove atheism: Smith described his argument from gratuitous evil as an inductive or evidential argument. Philosopher Bruce Russell argues that there is good reason to believe there is pointless suffering and therefore God does not exist. In this explanation of why he is not a Christian, Richard Carrier outlines the top four reasons why he rejects Christianity: God's silence, God's inactivity, lack of evidence, and the overt conflict between discovered reality and Christian theory.
Though a lay exposition geared at a general audience, the essay appeals to a variety of atheistic arguments, including the argument from religious confusion, an evidential argument from evil, divine hiddenness, the argument from biological evolution, and the argument from physical minds. In an interesting twist on the argument from design, Carrier turns the fine-tuning argument on its head, noting that several features of our universe--features predicted by naturalism--are highly improbable if Christian theism is true.
Graham Oppy explains the ways in which his reasons for rejecting Christianity differ from those offered by Bertrand Russell in his famous paper of the same title. In section I, Oppy considers how Christianity should be characterized, the best way to build a case against theism, and the nonrational reasons why people believe in God, among other things.
In section II, he offers an account of his journey to unbelief and the philosophy of religion. By section III, Oppy explains why he is not a Christian, as well as some of the things that he does believe.
Here he pines in on appeals to contingency and causality in theistic arguments, the problem of evil, free will, the mind-body problem, the history of the universe, human history, and the historicity of the Gospels--outlining his "supervenient naturalism" along the way.
Oppy wraps up by considering the meaning of life and whether virtuous behavior relates to Christian belief. You can dismiss the support request pop up for 4 weeks 28 days if you want to be reminded again. Or you can dismiss until our next donations drive typically at the beginning of October.
Before you dismiss, please consider making a donation. A Case for Atheism: Skepticism about Religion — Part 1. Thibodeau on the Real Atheology podcast. A Simple and Obvious Explanation. Summary of My Critique — Part 3. Summary of My Critique — Part 2. Do our reasons depend on our desires? Summary of My Critique — Part 1. Internet Infidels Needs Your Support!
The Problem of Evil - In his essay “Why God Allows Evil” Swinburne argues that the existence of evil in the world is consistent with the existence of all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God. To start, Swinburne bases his argument on two basic types of evil: moral and natural.
Thus, the problem of evil leads to a contradiction in at least one, if not all, of the attributes of God (that being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent). In his essay, Mackie examines what he calls “so-called” solutions to the problem: evil being a necessary counterpart to good, the universe being better off with some evil, evil acting as a .
The Problem Of Evil Cannot Be Solved Philosophy Essay. Evil is a problem, not because there is evil in the world or that there is so much of it in the world. The problem is not found in the lack of balance between good and evil in the world. Mar 08, · Beyond the Problem of Evil Introduction: The problem of evil is, in my opinion, the best point of departure for a fruitful dialogue between Christianity, traditionally conceived, and those strands of modern philosophy which have been perceived--indeed, have sometimes perceived themselves--as a threat to that tradition.
The God and Evil Problem Essay Words | 10 Pages. The God and Evil Problem A strong argument against the existence of a Christian God is contained in the theodicy problem. The existence of suffering is not compatible with an omniscient, omnipotent, omni benevolent superior being. Essay on The Problem of 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.