evil and suffering

Question 1

biblical background
- gen 3- the fall
- adam and eve create original sin
-

Question 2

natural evil
- disease, suffering of animals,earhtquakes
- result of things beyond human control
- e.g. animals in forest fires. 2004 tsunami killed 230,000 people,cancer
- old testemant gives lots of exmaples of god using nature to wreak havoc on people. e.g. the flood was punishment for corruption of human kind
- 7 plagues
- the exodus resultedin escape of israelites and death of many eygyptians
- new testemant has examples of jesus healing and controlling nature- curing blind man

Answer 2

moral evil
- hurtful and harmful acts that humans carry out or inaction when someone is in need
- a wide range in intensity of acts perpatrated
- many chrustians account for own daily acts of unkindness
- problem comes with horrendus acts of evil. e.g. pedophillia, sexual violence, holocaust, genocide
- raises question of why would god let acts be permitted

Question 3

logical problem of evil
- argument against gods existence based on logic
- god is omnibenevolent, omnipotnet, evil exists- epicurus’ inconsistent triad
- if two are true one is false.
- denying god omnipotence suggests a god unworthy if worship
- to deny a non benevolent god contradicts teachign of jesus and nature of god
- some deny the existence of evil
- augustine claims evil is absense of good
- aquinas claims evil lack of somethinggood natural to it
- blindness in a stone not evil as stones arent meant to see- blindnesss in person is

Answer 3

evidential problem of evil
- based on evidence in world around us
- quantity and quality of evil is overwhelming
millions of creatures destroyed by natural disaters
cruelties in dostoyevskys the borthers karamazov. one enough to state that evil is too high a price to pay for joys in heaven
- lots of evil has no purpose
- rowes example of fawn dying in forset fire. serves no purpose in temrs of enabling human developement in thought and action
- calls to question god omniscience. onnicient god must know all suffering- either he does not or he is evil for not stopping

Question 4

responses- free will defense
outline
- humans cannot have free will without existence of moral evil
- having free will is worth cost in terms of suffering
mackies free will defense
- was a athiest
first order good/ evil
- good, experienceing first hand pleasure or happiness e.g. eating a good meal
- evil, experience of misery or pain e.g. breaking a leg, having an accident
second order good/evil
- can minimise or maximise. to minimise makes itfirst order to maximise makes second order
- good, can respond to suffering with kindness, love, compassion. second order exists to maximise first order good and minimise first order evil
- evil, respond to suffereing with, hate cruelty. second order evil is the result of maximising first order evil and minimise first order good
third order good
- free will allows humans to choose betweentwo things
- pain and suffering help us grow and develop capacity for sympathy. however manychoose the opposite
fourth order good
- god creates humans with free will- teahces us to be morally responsible

Question 5

rejection and support
- mackie sets out the argument to then reject it
mackies rejection
- logically it is possible for someone to freely always choose good
- god couldve made people so they have true free choice yet always choose good
- he didnt so therefore he
lacks power or
love or
doesnt exist

Answer 5

plantingas defense of FWD
logical problem of moral evil
- plantinga’s possible worlds
1
- the world as it is. ‘free will’ and no casual determination from god –> evil and siffering exists
2
- no free will, with gods causal determination –> no evil but no free will
- would make humans robots
3
- free will and gods causal determination to make people choose good –> no evil
- logically impossible
- free will is incompatable with causal determination(libertarian)
- making mackings rejection fail
natural evil
- tied up with punishment from the fall
- logically possible that gods created or allowed ofr natural evil ciz of human sin in eden

Question 6

evaluation
strenghts
- plantinga shows free will defense approach is logically possible in realtion to both natural and moral evil and mackies suggestion is not
- ``