evil and suffering Flashcards
What kind of argument is the logical prob
a priori, deductive
Who was the first person to express the problem of evil
Epicurus
Who developed Epicicurus argument and into what
Mackie, into inconsistent triad
What is the skeleton of the logical problem (the inconsistent triad)
God being omnipotent, benevolent and evil existing can not all exist at once
Explain the inconsistent triad in more detail
Omnipotence gives power to eliminate evil. Omnibenevolence gives motivation to prevent evil. Something cannot possibly exist if there is a being with the power and motivation to eliminate it. Therefore if evil exists, an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God cannot exist. God could at most be omnibenevolent or omnipotent but not both. Logically impossible for both God (as defined with omnipotence & omnibenevolence) and evil to both exist.
What kind of argument is the evidential problem of evil
A posteriori, inductive
Brief explanation of evidential problem
Evidence of evil in the world makes belief in God unjustified. Evil is evidence against God’s existence however does not prove his non-existence
4 aspects of Hume’s evidential problem of evil
1 – Animal suffering. Why shouldn’t nature be created such that animals feel less pain, or indeed no pain at all?
2 – Creatures have limited abilities to ensure their survival and happiness
3 – Why does nature have extremes which make survival and happiness more difficult? Natural evil
4 – Why doesn’t God intervene to prevent individual natural disasters?
What does Hume being an empiricist mean?
We are only justified in believing what we have evidence for
How does Hume’s argument for evidential problem of evil prove there is not a perfect God
an imperfect world, is not consistent with a perfect God, belief in a perfect God unjustified
Explain Hume’s argument against reasons why God allows evil to exist
It is possible that a perfect God exists but allows evil for reasons consistent with omnibenevolence, ‘but they are unknown to us’. Hume is arguing that whatever speculations theologians like Augustine and Irenaeus might invent about God’s ‘reasons’ for allowing evil, we have no evidence that God has such reasons. So, we are unjustified in believing them. You cannot infer goodness from evil, so it is invalid. An empirical inference from evil to belief in a perfectly good God is not valid.
Brief explanation of free will defence POINT 1- Free will is for the greater good
God gave humans free will to bring about greater good. Possible for God and evil to exist together because evil is the result of free will.
Quote from Plantinga about free will
‘God’s creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value’
Brief explanation of free will defence POINT 2- Natural evil caused by humans
Natural evil result of free will of Adam + Eve in Garden of Eden casuing orignial sin
