This turns out to be a logical contradiction, as stated previously, evil does exist in this world in many different forms, so this being of which no greater can be conceived must not exist. Epicurus’ questions or paradox, as it has come to be known, goes as follows, “If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to? Then he is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
To be clear I take evil to mean anything harmful, malicious, or immoral. Evil is essentially anything that causes human misery or suffering. Evil also has multiple elements. For example, the moral evil of murder is distinguished from the physical evil of a natural disaster. All types of evil have the potential to cause contradiction between reality and the established conception of a personal God.
Augustine’s soul deciding theodicy was the demonstration that God is not responsible for the existence of evil. A theodicy is a Greek term which means to justify God and that is what Augustine tried to do. Augustine stated that there is no such thing or substance as Evil but the idea of evil stems from the absence of goodness and our human free will which is central to being truly good. God created all things ex nihilo, from nothing, so it is impossible for evil to exist as a substance. Augustine said that “Evil stemmed from the free fallible choices of beings…in the pre-history of time,” referring to the free will of Adam and Eve and the Fallen Angels.
April 4th 2012 MW 10-11:15 Intro to Philosophy In On Free Will, Augustine claims that there are two types of evil: the evil men do and the evil men suffer. First, how does this relate to his argument concerning free will, and secondly, do you agree or disagree that the sins [of man] can be charged against God because of the existence of evil (the nature of the universe)? Explain. When Evodius speaks with Augustine, he picks at the thought of God being the author of evil (OFW, Book 1, I, section 1.). Augustine replies back to him which kind of evil is Ev talking about: the evil that men do and the evil that men suffer.
A. Based on the theodical “free-will defense,” it is possible for a God to possess the properties of being “benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient” while at the same time allowing the existence of evils; therefore, the two should not be contradictory. B. Set aside all the legislative, judicial and government regulatory systems, it is an indisputable fact that the all-loving God has given us, humans, free-will, which is defined as a “free and responsible choice” by Swinburne. The “choice” here represents a decision between good and evil, which implies that there is always an inevitable non-predetermined possibility (of either evil or good or both), which may substantially harm or (and) benefit the others, the initiator (one who makes the choice), and perhaps, the world, that comes with this privileged free-will.
Agnosticism is the purely epistemological stance that sufficient evidence does not exist for or against theism therefore the best stance on the argument is no stance at all. Combinations of these positions are possible due to their varying natures, but here only the argument between theism and atheism is examined more closely. The problem of evil is described and used to argue against the existence of God. Richard Swinburne’s solution to the problem of evil is explained and used to revise the original atheist’s argument from evil to its best, but still insufficient, form. Commonly, atheists hold the view that organized religions are corrupt and actually cause more harm than good.
If God is all powerful and in complete control why does he allow such evil things to take place? In order to answer such questions we must first take a look at why we as people are in this predicament. Evil exists not because God is not in control or due to his incompetence as our Father. Evil entered the world through our own disobedience and failure to trust God in his perfection. “The woman was convinced.
Response to Being an Atheist Christina Yarbrough PHIL 210 Liberty University H.J McCloskey wrote an article entitled “On Being an Atheist” which dealt with the atheist approach to the cosmological and teleological approaches and the problem of evil. He calls his view of the arguments proofs, as he feels that the arguments offer no proof for the existence of God. He believes that atheism is a more comfortable way to believe than that of theism and that those who believe in theism should be upset just because they believe in God. I believe that McCloskey has a fallacy in his arguments and that the existence of God can not be proven through any one argument, and that all we can do is defend our beliefs within the realm of our own understanding. McCloskey is reminding atheists the ways theists argue for their belief in God.
Explain the nature of the problem of evil The problem of evil was first formulated by the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus who identified that the qualities of the God of classical theism (omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence) cannot be reconciled with the undeniable fact that there are evil calamities striking all the time in the form of natural and moral evil, and metaphysical (as Leibniz also suggests, originating from the concept that the world although created by God is imperfect). Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
An omnipotent God would be able to prevent evil if he wanted to. A God both omnipotent and omnibenevolent would both want to and be able to prevent evil. P2 states that evil and suffering do exist, making it apparent that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good Gods existence would be almost impossible. If a tri-omni god existed, then evil would not be able to exist The biggest weakness of the argument will be P1 that if an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good God exists, then evil and suffering would not exist. If God is all knowing and all powerful and all good, therefore god would not want us to suffer and not put evil on earth.