Humes Arguement From Evil

869 Words4 Pages
David Hume's Argument from Evil The problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of the evil in the world with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good God. The argument from evil is the atheistic argument that the existence of such evil cannot be reconciled with, and so disproves, the existence of such a God. The argument from evil for the non-existence of God can be broken down to the moral evil vs. natural evil and that evil in the world is necessary. God is seen as all knowing, benevolent, and all-powerful. However, if he were to be all three of these things, then why does he allow evil to occur? There are two kinds of evil in the world: moral and natural. Moral evils, by definition, are those evils that are freely inflicted upon humankind by humankind. Moral evils include deceit, murder, and theft. The main argument against the existence of God comes from the belief that God would not allow moral evil to occur. The argument from moral evil can be broken down into four arguments. (1) If God exists then he is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent. (2) If God were omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent then the world would not contain moral evil. (3) The world contains moral evil. Therefore: (4) It is not the case that God exists. In response to these arguments, the “free will defiance” holds that God chose to create humankind to be free, and that evil is the result of society’s abuse of that freedom. This defiance applies only to moral evil because society does not and cannot control natural evils. Natural evils, by definition, are those evils that occur as the result of natural processes. Natural evils include earthquakes, forest fires and tsunamis. Natural evil therefore poses a greater threat to belief in God than moral evil. The argument here against the existence of God consists of if God did exists he would not allow
Open Document