Explain the Nature of the Problem of Evil

802 Words4 Pages
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. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? Evil occurrences present a major challenge to believers because they are caught in a contradiction because they cannot say that God exists and evil exists. This is called the inconsistent triad. David Hume thus believed that God is either not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent or evil does not exist. According to Mackie, each of these possibilities answers the problem of evil but none of them are orthodox. Since we have sufficient direct experience to support the existence of evil, if God exists he is either an impotent God or a malicious God — not the God of classical theism. Hume and Mackie conclude that God therefore does not exist. Needless to say, the problem of evil only relates to the God of classical theism. In eastern religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism there is no such thing as ‘the problem of evil’. Both religions do not claim that there is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. In Hinduism God exhibits both characteristics of good and evil. Suffering is seen as something inevitably of the physical world of samsara – the endless cycle of birth, death and rebirth. In Buddhism, the Buddha taught the Four Noble truths which explain that all life is suffering. To understand
Open Document