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.
Roberto Kelly 8/10/2012 Prof.Preston Phil 115 2. The Problem of evil The problem of evil is the problem of merging the existence of the evil in the world with the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful and perfectly good God. The argument from evil is the atheistic argument that the existence of such evil cannot be merged with, and so disproves, the existence of such a God. Some of the ways that theist have tried to respond to the problem of evil is that with the existence of good, requires the existence of evil. Meaning that since good and evil are opposites, since god created good he would have to have created evil.
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.
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.
I disagree with Pascal’s argument and I do not think it is a good one. Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s “The Problem of Evil” is also in a way against Pascal’s argument. Dostoyevsky argues his part using the evil in this world to show the price we pay for just being and whether or not believing in God’s existence can compensate for the pain. In Dostoyevsky’s “The Problem of Evil” there are two brothers who are having a conversation about why there needs to be such evil in God’s created world and whether or not believing in God can indeed compensate for that. I disagree with Pascal’s argument that a person loses nothing from believing in the existence of God and gains everything if he or she believes.
Their decision to turn away from God-despite living in paradise because of him- created the first evil and gave rise to original sin, something all humans are born with (According to Catholicism.) The misuse of free will in turning away from God leads to obsession to worldly objects such as money. It is important to note that Augustine does not believe money is evil, he believes obsession with money, and any other secular object for that matter, draws away from God and leads the soul to sin. With obsession, as is human nature, comes addiction. Augustine believed that addiction was excessively evil, and as well as being a sin, conflicted with the process of free will.
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
Moral evil is an act of mankind such as murder; natural evil would be something that is not caused by any specific agent but has victims such as would be produced by earthquakes.  Because of evil in the world, many argue against there being a creator God by attempting to show that the co-existence of evil and such a deity is unlikely or impossible. The attempts to justify the ways of God to man by proving that God can and does co-exist with evil, are known as theodicies and provide various responses to the problem of evil. Leibniz’s theodicy states that God did not choose the best in creating the world, but then God would be lacking in power, knowledge and goodness. Augustinian theodicy argues that God created the world and it was perfect, without any evil or suffering until man’s fall and Irenaean theodicy states God is partially responsible for evil and suffering as a process of soul building.
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.
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.