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.
Evil as Disproof of a Perfect God Proving the existence of God is a tricky matter. The fact that no definitive empirical evidence for God exists is not the proof of non-existence. In other words the “absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence”, (Carl Sagan). To refute the existence of a theistic God, one would have to provide some sort of proof against the notion. Theologians have long struggled over the philosophical problem of evil.
He is malevolent. Is God both able and willing? Then whence commeth the evil. If he is neither able nor willing then why call him god?” This is called the inconsistent triad; if God has all these Omni qualities then why does evil still remain on earth? Augustine’s soul deciding theodicy was the demonstration that God is not responsible for the existence of evil.
B. Swinburne claims that if there is a God, the occurrence of evils is to be expected. C. If the theist cannot explain why the co-existence of God and Evil is possible, then his belief in God is not rational. II. Moral Evil: Any evil doing that does harms to others and is done by humans with intents. A.
In an attempt to assess the implications of miracles for the problem of evil, we must look at what the problem of evil consists of. God is said to be wholly benevolent and omnipotent however there is evil and suffering in the world. If God is all loving and all powerful, He has the power to stop evil because He loves His creation yet it still exists. C.S Lewis states that “If God was good, He would wish to make his creatures perfectly happy and if God were almighty He would be able to do what He wished. But the creatures are not happy.
He speaks of how a world with humans is better than a world without, and because of this it is just does not make sense to have a world without evil. But this could also just lead us back to the original problem, bringing to mind the thought that if God is able to do anything and everything, then he should be able to create a perfect world with no evil. The fifth premise states simply “But, there’s evil.” Laurence distinguishes between the two different kinds of evil when explaining this argument. He says that natural evil can
It typically fashions itself in a question such as this. How can a good God allow so much evil to take place if He loves us? This is often asked by but not limited to someone who has been hurt while serving God faithfully or by someone who has no significant knowledge of who God truly is. The problem of evil also presents itself as more of a statement rather than a question as well. If God is all powerful and in complete control why does he allow such evil things to take place?
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.
Augustine replies back to him which kind of evil is Ev talking about: the evil that men do and the evil that men suffer. Ev responds to him saying, “I want to know about both kinds of evil.” Aug begins to define while conversing with Ev by explaining that God gives justly to the righteous and the wicked what they deserve. The explanation is clear. God gives the righteous their rewards and the wicked he punishes justly, but the way we experience His justice is through suffering. He further explains that the evil deeds that we perform are of our own accord, and that we are punished by God’s justice because they are done out of our own free will.
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.