Augustine defends the god of theism by rejecting the existence of evil as a force or power opposed to god as it would reject the premise that god is omnipotent. Below are the ways in which he justifies moral and natural evil, which respectively mean evil caused by human acts, and evil events caused by the processes of nature. To justify evil, he solves the problem by defining evil as a ‘privation’ – which means when something is ‘evil’, it is not defined to contain bad qualities but is seen to be falling short of perfection, or what it is expected to be. Take a rapist as an example. Adopting Augustine’s idea of ‘evil’, we are to say that he is not living up to standards expected of human beings.
Since peace and war are opposites and one can only exist when the other doesn’t makes some theist response not very accurate. The difference between defense and theodicy is that theodicy tries to explain why God allows evil, it assumes the existence of both God and evil. A defense is
In response to the option in which God creates a world with free agents and no evil, a world with no evil would mean a world with no good, so it would be impossible for God to create a free agents that only choose good, since evil does not exist. It would limit free will, and limited free will is not free will. The reason why it would be impossible for good to exist without evil existing is that we need evil to exist so that we can define it and understand what it is and how it works. After we find out that information, we could base what good is off of what evil is not, which is what we do now with
Explain the term evil (30m) There are 2 different types of evil moral (caused by human beings) and natural (caused by nature). There is a logical problem of evil which is called the inconsistent triad; this is the argument that God cannot possess all the Omni characteristics with the existence of evil. This is a logical inconsistency. The existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of God; it is logically incoherent to accept that both exist together. God being omnipotent means that he can do anything which means he could have created a world free from evil.
This raises problems for Boethius' argument, however he addresses this and creates a counter assertment. As argued above free will is needed for just rewards/punishments, some people say this because it would be unfair to punish people who could not choose to do otherwise. Others such as Augustine believe that free will is necessary because without free will there should be no evil in the world as there is no choice to create evil where as evil does exist, without free will this must have been created by God, contradicting God's omnibenevolence. Irenaeus' view is simelar to Augustine however he adds that human beings could not be perfect, God is all that is perfect so we were given an imperfect world and free will, so that we would be a reflection of God but not perfect. Hick's approach to the necessity of free will grows from the idea that God wants humans to genuinly love him and show faith, without free will we could not make a decision as to whether or not we had faith, belief or even love for God, we would merely be robots designed to love him.
Surely and all loving (omnibenevolent) God wouldn’t allow this. Human Evil is where people cause harm to others and create chaos. Why would God create a world that consists of evil and cruelty? therefore Mill questions the idea of an omnibenevolent God, however if it is disagreed that God isn’t all loving then it could suggest that God doesn’t know of our suffering and could mean that omniscience cannot possibly be an attribute of God. Mill would say that if God is omniscient then surely he is aware of our suffering and would therefore intervene in the evil as he loves us all.
For religious believers, the Irenaean theodicy would solve the problem of evil as it explains how both evil and suffering co-exist with God. However, there may be too many underlying problems with the theodicy, making it hard to convince some religious believers. For example, if God is said to be omnibenevolent, then surely he couldn’t have made such moral spiritual virtues inbuilt in his creation. Even if the Irenaean theodicy is believable, it can’t justify why God would allow such suffering in his world, and surely, he would enable his creations to learn such lessons in a far easier way. Additionally, it’s never justifiable to hurt anyone in order to help them, and so the Irenaean theodicy fails to defend God in the presence of evil.
Good Requires Evil In a world of confusion, he who lives, lives by his own rules and morals. As in the comparison of pretty to ugly, it can be seen that good and evil only exist in their difference from one another. For example, if there was no definition of beauty, there would be no concept of ugly either. The dull response of “without evil, there is no good” holds much authority in this argument. Can we make the assumption that evil is just a division of a clear good?
And for morality to require God in such a way, there must be a direct link between the two. I believe that morality is defined by God, therefore immoral actions are wrong solely because God forbids them. Similarly, the “rightness” of moral actions is only because God has commanded them. In today's world things are defined as “right” or “wrong” or “moral” and “immoral.” This is because God, is the one that has allowed us to even understand what morality is. I believe that God is the creator and sustainer of all things, and that we would not even be self aware, let alone aware of right and wrong, if God had not created within us his image, and therefore the ability to make moral distinctions.
He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice. Henry David Thoreau’s position on civil disobedience is neither morally irresponsible nor politically reprehensible. Civil disobedience is technically illegal, and is punishable, but who is ultimately responsible for determining what is right or wrong? Van Dusen strongly believes that defiance of laws go against the democratic nature of our government: “Bit civil disobedience, whatever the ethical rationalization, is still an assault on our