Problem Of Evil
Final Paper – The Problem of Evil The problem of evil is a widespread argument that attempts to disprove the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. However, there are many refutations to the problem that demonstrate, while the problem of evil may seem to be wholly logical, it does not achieve the goal of absolutely disproving the existence of the aforementioned God. It is important to first examine the argument in support of the problem of evil, in order to understand why it may cause some individuals to challenge the existence of God. This leads to the construction of the argument in a definitive manner, with explicit premises and a conclusion. With that information, one can interpret the theodicies that have arisen in response to
…show more content…
For example, the punishment theodicy proposes the idea that evil is just a form of punishment for sin, although there are many instances that “punishments” seem far too severe for any sin possibly committed. The soul-building theodicy claims that evil is necessary for human development, as “sin and suffering is valuable… because improvement of character.” One of the main responses is with the free will theodicy, though, and focuses on God choosing upon creation of beings to make them free. Though this choice posed the risk of agents freely choosing to do evil, the benefits ultimately outweighed the risk because of the inherent value placed on libertarian free will. Because of free will, people have “moral responsibility for their actions” and can be considered “creators in their own right,” so God is justified in giving people free will, but not responsible for their reprehensible choices (Timmons and Shoemaker, 308). As always, there are objections to this argument, one of the principal ones being that there are many natural evils that occur without a freely willed decision leading to it. For example, hurricanes and disease causing suffering and death. However, where there is reason for believing in a supernatural God, there can be reason for believing in entities such as demons as well. These natural evils could result from the free choices of said demons, thus classifying them as moral evils in the end as well. Another objection to the free will targets the true “benefits” of beings having free will. With free will comes desires to do wrong, but if the wrong is combatted by the desire to do right, and morality wins, satisfaction follows. However, in some extreme cases, is the desire to murder people really worth the “good feeling” after choosing not to? It appears that these immoral inclinations may not seem to be truly
For example, the punishment theodicy proposes the idea that evil is just a form of punishment for sin, although there are many instances that “punishments” seem far too severe for any sin possibly committed. The soul-building theodicy claims that evil is necessary for human development, as “sin and suffering is valuable… because improvement of character.” One of the main responses is with the free will theodicy, though, and focuses on God choosing upon creation of beings to make them free. Though this choice posed the risk of agents freely choosing to do evil, the benefits ultimately outweighed the risk because of the inherent value placed on libertarian free will. Because of free will, people have “moral responsibility for their actions” and can be considered “creators in their own right,” so God is justified in giving people free will, but not responsible for their reprehensible choices (Timmons and Shoemaker, 308). As always, there are objections to this argument, one of the principal ones being that there are many natural evils that occur without a freely willed decision leading to it. For example, hurricanes and disease causing suffering and death. However, where there is reason for believing in a supernatural God, there can be reason for believing in entities such as demons as well. These natural evils could result from the free choices of said demons, thus classifying them as moral evils in the end as well. Another objection to the free will targets the true “benefits” of beings having free will. With free will comes desires to do wrong, but if the wrong is combatted by the desire to do right, and morality wins, satisfaction follows. However, in some extreme cases, is the desire to murder people really worth the “good feeling” after choosing not to? It appears that these immoral inclinations may not seem to be truly