Posted at 10.29.2018
Evil can be defined as whatever is painful, destructive or disastrous. There is much evil in the world, which is often split into either natural or moral evil. Natural evil refers to suffering caused by natural disasters whereas moral evil refers to suffering which has been caused by individual selfishness. I believe that the existence of the evils in the world disproves the lifestyle of God. These evils would not exist if there was a correctly good, all adoring, omnipotent, omniscient God as He would want to prevent all evils and would be able to do so. In this article I am going to go through the logical issue of evil, taking a look at the arguments submit by Epicurus, Hume and Aquinas. I will also go through the evidential issue of evil, in particular the arguments put forward by William L. Rowe and Paul Draper which support the declare that the presence of evil disproves the existence of God. I will also look at Augustines and Irenaues' theodicies against these quarrels. Then finally I will look at problems with these theodicies and just why I really believe the living of evil as well as the living of God is incompatible.
The logical issue of evil submit by Epicurus claims that evil could not can be found if god was all loving and omnipotent. Thus, because there is evil on earth God cannot exist. He argues that an all caring god wouldn't normally tolerate the anguish of his creatures therefore he'd have created a world in which this suffering does not exist to begin with, or would step in to avoid it. Likewise if god was omnipotent he'd have been able to make a world without evil and fighting to start with. Therefore, the lifestyle of evil on earth supports the claim that either God will not exist, or that he is either not omnipotent or not all loving.
Humes in the same way argued that the presence of evil in the world supposed that God would have to be either not omnipotent or not all-loving. As it is not possible for God to be either of these things Humes figured God does not exist.
Aquinas noticed evil as the absence of good, or failure to attain potential. In his publication Summa Theologica, Aquinas says that 'the name of god means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore God been around, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil on the globe. Therefore God will not can be found. ' This debate is comparable to that of Epicurus and Humes, saying that the living of evil on earth contradicts the thought of an all loving, omniscient, omnipotent god. Thus again helping my claim that the life of God is incompatible with the life of evil on earth.
There is also the evidential issue of evil which contends known facts about evil as facts against the presence of God. William L. Rowe argued that 'there are present instances of strong fighting which an omnipotent, omniscient being may have prevented without thus losing some better good or permitting some evil evenly bad or worse'. Then continues on to claim that such a God would want to prevent such hurting and would be able to accomplish that and concludes that because this type of suffering is out there then God cannot.
The life of gratuitous evil on earth can similarly be used to disprove the lifetime of God relating to Paul Draper. Evil which is without obvious reason or justification wouldn't normally can be found if God been around as He would not allow it. Therefore because there are conditions where gratuitous evil can be thought to exist God does not exist.
Theodicies have been submit so that they can justify the presence of God alongside the existence of evil in the world. Augustine argued that God's creation was 'faultless and perfect' which evil 'came up from within the world'. As an explanation for the living of evil on the globe Augustine blamed the 'show up' of man from your garden of Eden (Genesis 3). Disobeying God in the Garden of Eden sometimes appears by Augustine as a moral evil resulting in the evil within the globe. The cause of this is free will and the allowance of man to possess control over their actions and freedom of preference, including the capacity to choose evil rather than good. Thus Augustine argues that God continues to be all caring, omniscient and omnipotent therefore he allows us to have free will and it is our mistake we choose to do moral evil. To take away our free will would be unloving as it could eliminate our ability to choose good also to love God. Natural evil, on the other hands, is seen because of the 'disharmony of nature brought about by the street to redemption'.
The presence of evil does not always disprove the lifetime of God corresponding to Irenaeus. In his theodicy, Irenaeus attempts to justify the living of evil as a sign of Gods goodness. He claims that evil and enduring on earth are useful as a way of knowledge, essential for character-building and offer a predictable environment. It is said by Irenaeus that minus the presence of evil these capabilities would be unobtainable. Therefore an all caring, omniscient, omnipotent God has allowed for evil to can be found as a way for humans to learn and ultimately reach excellence.
Although providing a possible justification of the living of evil in a global created by an all caring, omniscient and omnipotent God, Augustine's theodicy does have some problems. Firstly, the idea of natural selection could be seen to contradict the theory that your garden of Eden been around in 'blissful ignorance' as it depends upon the selfishness of animals as vital to their success. Also, God must still be accountable for the evil that has come from 'within the world' as he created it. An omniscient God could have had the opportunity to foresee the evil which would come about and have been able to avoid it. Augustine also claimed that we are all being punished for Eves activities in your garden of Eden which contradicts the bible itself - 'should the children's pearly whites be place on edge because the Fathers have ingested sour grapes?' (Jeremiah 31:27-34). The presence of hell also shows that God must have foreseen the need for abuse therefore exhibiting that God cannot be all loving and this mankind can't be held fully in charge of nov man.
Similarly, there are issues with Irenaeus's theodicy. The main concern with this theodicy is whether hurting and evil is absolutely necessary in order to achieve the desired goals. Surely an all caring, omnipotent, omniscient God would be able to devise a way in which humans could learn and develop with no need for evil and anguish. It is also not in the type of an all caring God to permit certain people to starve to death to be able to supply the knowledge to others to supply them. I therefore do not assume that these theodocies provide a conclusive defence for the presence of evil alongside the life of god on earth.
In realization, throughout this essay I have attemptedto prove why the existence of evil within the earth shows us that God will not are present. By looking at the arguments of famous philosophers I have found evidence to support this claim. I've also viewed theodicies which disprove my debate and found possible errors with these quarrels. I think that the living of an all adoring, omniscient, omnipotent God is simply incompatible with the existence of evil. In order for evil to can be found God can't be all of these things, if God is not all of these things then he simply isn't God. Therefore God cannot are present. Although the lifestyle of God and evil may well not automatically be logically and evidentially suitable, I assume that God is essential for many people around the world to comprehend why evil and battling occurs also to have you to definitely blame. Thus whatever evidence can be acquired I don't think it would ever before be completely possible to disprove the life of God in its entirety as believers would still come up with situations where an all caring, omniscient, omnipotent God allows for the existence of evil.
Word Count: 1483