problem of evil and suffering Flashcards
what are the two types of evil
natural and moral
what is natural evil
- results from natural functioning events of the world
- no help from humanity
- no intent behind them
exmaples: snow storm
natural disasters
floods
what is moral evil?
- events occuring from human activity that cause suffeiring
- events that effect humanity or other living beings
- deliberta actions
examples: murder
hilter
what is the logical problem of evill according to epicurus
epicurus said that a god who was all poweful and all loving could and would want to get rid of all evil and suffering since there is still suffering it means god isnt all powerfull or all loving so why is there evil in the world with this
what is the logical problem of evil according to mackie
the three view points of (evil exists, gods omnipotence, gods perfect goodness) leads to an inconsistent triad that is if you accept two you must reject the third. a good omnipotent being wouuld eliminate evil completely . therefore the proposition that a good ominpotent being exists are incompatible
what is the probelm of suffering according to mackie
the three view points of (evil exists, gods omnipotence, gods perfect goodness) raises a diffrent question because of suffering . whereas the logical argument attempts to show that the existence of god is inconsistent with the existence of evils leads to atheism the personal argument - why me, why this and why now. assuming that god exists cant be trusted
what does mackie say about evil and omnipotence
the logical probem arises because theists maintain that there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. mackie says that the only solution to deny this is called solutions or theodicies that catually limit gods power but keep the term
what does rowe say about the probelm of evil and suffering
- in his book the probelm of evil and some varities of atheism
- he says it seem reasonable for god to allow some limited suffering to enable humans to grow and develop
- however he couldnt accept what he called intense suffering and animal suuering is pointless
mackie
what are the various theodicies mackie argue with up with
- god is bound by logical necessities. hence not omnipotent since he cannot do what is logically impossible - some philosophers argue that if God cannot do logically impossible things, this challenges the traditional notion of divine omnipotence. In this view, God’s inability to perform logical contradictions does not limit His power in any meaningful way, but rather affirms that omnipotence operates within the realm of what is logically coherent. Thus, while God is all-powerful, He is still bound by the nature of reality and logic.
- god is subject to casul laws whihc he made - hence not omnipotent because he as to introduce ecil as a means to good
- god makes things he cannot contol - free will wihtin human s
this is wherte mackie argues taht the theodicies do not give a solution to the problem of evil since they have chnage the premises of god is omnjpotent
rowe
what does he say about intense suffering
- that an omnipotent and omniscient being would know when intese suffering was about to take pkace
- such a being could prevent the suffering from happening
- an all loving being would probably prevent all evil and suffering that had no purpose and poinless and avoidable
- such evil and suffering doesnt happen
- therefore probbly a god doesnt exist
what is the paradox of omnipotence according to mackie
- Mackie’s paradox of omnipotence serves to clarify the nature of divine power while revealing the complexities and limitations of our understanding of omnipotence in philosophical and theological discussions
- ## One version of the paradox involves the classic question: “Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it?” If the answer is yes, then there is something God cannot do (lift the stone), which suggests He is not omnipotent. If the answer is no, then God cannot create the stone, which again implies a limitation to His power. This dilemma illustrates that the very notion of omnipotence can lead to logical contradictions.
mackie
what would happen if you remove omnipotence from the inconsistent triad
- If you remove omnipotence from Mackie’s inconsistent triad, the remaining propositions would be that God is wholly good and that evil exists. Without the claim that God is omnipotent, the problem of evil could be framed differently: it might suggest that while God desires to eliminate evil and is good, He may not have the power to do so. This would imply that God could be limited in strength or capacity, potentially allowing for the existence of evil without contradicting His goodness. In this scenario, the focus shifts to understanding God’s nature and the limits of His power rather than presenting a direct challenge to the concept of a perfect, all-powerful deity
mackie
what would happen if you took omnibenevolence out o the inconsistent triad
If you remove omnibenevolence from Mackie’s inconsistent triad, the remaining propositions would be that God is omnipotent and that evil exists. In this case, the existence of evil could be explained by suggesting that God is powerful enough to eliminate it but chooses not to because He is not wholly good. This could lead to interpretations of God as indifferent, malevolent, or simply unconcerned with human suffering. Without the assumption of God’s goodness, the presence of evil would not necessarily conflict with God’s power, but it would raise significant ethical questions about the nature of divinity and the reasons behind allowing evil to exist.
mackie
what would happen if you removed evil form the inconsistent triad
If you remove evil from Mackie’s inconsistent triad, the remaining propositions would be that God is omnipotent and wholly good. In this scenario, the absence of evil would eliminate the central problem that the triad addresses. With no evil in the world, the concepts of God’s power and goodness would no longer seem to conflict, as an all-powerful, perfectly good being would be fully capable of creating a world without suffering or moral wrongdoing. This would suggest a harmonious existence where divine attributes align perfectly, reinforcing the belief in a benevolent and omnipotent God without the challenges posed by the presence of evil.
what does greogory paul argue
that the death of so many innocent children challanges the existence of god
what does paul greogory estimate
that 50 billion children have died naturally anf some 300 billion humans have dies naturally but prenatally - he calls this the holocaust of vhildren - it is not crediable that an omnipotent and omnbelenant