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
what does his estimations mean for the existence of god
- millions of kids suffer and die every year, from both natural ad evil causes
- these children are too young to be able to make choices aboit god they have no free will
- no all loving and all powerful being would permit such suffering
- therefore god does not exist
challanges
what are relgious responses to the belief of the problem of evil and suffering
augustinian type theodicy and irenaean type theodicys
what is augustinians theodicy
he has a few reasons to dis validate the probelm of evil
1. evil as a consequesnce of sin
2. evil as privation
3. the fall of human beings and creation
4. the cross overcomes evil
5. soul deciding
6. moral evil
7. natural evil
augustian
what is evil as consquence of sin
god nature is supposed to be omnibenevolent therefore god cannot be responsible fo evil - humanity is what augutinian beleived cause evil
augustinian
what is his argument on the fall of human beings and creations
- adam and eve were to be perfect
- god gave him the gift to have free will and choose how they act
- they were given on instruction not to eat frmo the tree of knowledge and evil anf when tempted by the serpenat and te the fruit this was the orignal sin
- bevcause we are all seminall present in adam at eden
- adams sin has passed on through sexual intercourse
- so the excistence oe evil is due to human sin not god
augutinian
what is his argument on evil as a privation
- scripture tells us that god created everything out of nothing
- so therefore god must of created evil
- however augustinian believes that evil is a absense of a quality that is usually present/ an absece of god
- therefore god couldnt of created this absence as god only creates good
- therefore god didnt create evil
what is augustinians argument about the cross overcomes evil
- god is loving and poweful - he does not want us to suffger and can do somehting about it
- Augustine’s argument about the cross overcoming evil centers on the idea that Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection provide a powerful answer to the problem of evil. Augustine believed that evil entered the world through human free will when Adam and Eve chose to disobey God. However, through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, the ultimate act of love and redemption, God transforms suffering and evil into a pathway for salvation.
- he argued that the cross demonstrates how God can bring good out of evil. By enduring suffering, Jesus not only atoned for humanity’s sins but also offered hope and the possibility of eternal life. Therefore, the cross symbolizes the victory over evil, showing that even the worst suffering can lead to a greater good, such as the reconciliation of humanity with God. In this way, Augustine believed that evil does not have the final say; rather, love and redemption triumph through the cross.
augustinian
what is his argument on soul deciding
- all humans deserve punishment according to gods justice
- gos is merciful and so offers the oppourunity for salvation through christ
- it is upto the person to decide wethere to vhoose god
- this makes it a soul deciding theodicy where we choose god
finally what does augustinian say abotu natural evil
- natural evil is at fault of humanity
- when adam feel he destroyed the created order in the garden allowing evil into the wordl
- gid allows it into the world because it allows good to be appreciated and show
what is augustins response on moral evil
- moral evil is a consequence of our free will that was bought about by humanity
- it was part of gods creation fo us to have free will
- free will means we have thr powert ot leave and reject god
- moral evil come sabout as mankind ecerisses its evil
what does the challange of augustinians theory of the validity of accounts genesis mean when disproviing augustinians theory
- augustinian assumes genesis is reveled truth which is may not be
- he assumes the events of the creation is as exactly as gensis descibes
- however instead genesis could be an example of relgious language
what are challanges to augustinians challanges on the probelm of evil
- validity of accounts in gensis
- scientific error
- moral contradictions of omnibenevolent god and existence of hell
- contradictions of perfect order becoming chaotic
what does the challange of augustinians theory of secientific errors made in augustines theory
- it is not phyically possible for the whole of humanity to be seminally present in adam
- it is biologically unlikey that the whole of humanity desended from a single pair of humans
- sin is not genetic
- sin is not contagious
- so we cannot biologically inheret adams sin
what does the contradictions of perfect order becoming chaotic dis validate augustines theory
- evolutionary theory and geological evidence state that the world did not begin perfect and then deteriorate - it began chaotically and order gradually formed
- adam sinned - a perect human would be able to sin but would not do so - so this means adam and eve were not created perfect so god is too blame
what is irenaean type theodicy
evil and suffering was created for legitmiate reasons.
irenaeus
what was his main points of disproving the probelm of evil and suffering
- value of soul making
- humans being created imperfect
- epistemic distance
- second order goods
- eschatological justification
irenaue
what is his belief on soul making
- the purpose of the worl is to make the perfect souls
- we were created imperfect with thr potential for perfection
- geniune human perfection id devlpoed through free choicr
- we are placed on earth where we suffer and struggle
- suffering allows us to devlop into perfection as god intends through our free choices
- god is like a crafts man who mould and make shis creation beautiful
irenaus
what was his belief on humans being created imperfect
- god created man in his own image
- however we are not like him and we must grow iinto the likeness of god
- so we must grow into making ourselves perfect and its not given to us by god
ireneaus
what was his belief on epistemic distance
- god stays at an epistemic distance so we can freely choose to develop into his likeness - similar to imperfect beings
ireneaus
what is his belief on second order goods
god allows natural evil in the wordl because it provides the opportunity for spiritual growth
- it would be easy to be good in a perfect world
- if resorces were plentiful and distasters didnt happen there woulkd be no opporunity for growth
- when evil occurs we have the chance to demonstarte virutues like charity and alturism and compassion
- these woudl be unnessary in a perfect world
- theses virtues rely on second order goods taht rely on existence of evil to flourish
- the world must contain a full range of possible evill to ensure the full range of possible good
ireanues
what his is argument on eschatological justification
gods purpose in allowing suffering is justfied till after we died. Eschatological justification refers to the belief that, ultimately, God will bring about justice and restore all things at the end of time. Irenaeus argued that the trials and tribulations people face in this life are part of a divine plan that prepares them for a future existence with God. In the eschaton—when God fully reveals His purpose and justice—those who have endured suffering and remained faithful will receive eternal rewards, and the presence of evil will be reconciled with God’s goodness. Thus, Irenaeus emphasized that the suffering experienced in this life is not pointless but is meaningful in light of the eventual fulfillment of God’s plan for humanity.
what are the challanges to ireanus theodicies
- concepts on unversal salvation arre unjust
- evil and suffering whoulc not be used as a tool by god
- the immensity of suffering and unequal distribution of evil and suffering
what does concepts of universal salvation are unjust mean when invalidating ireneaus theodicies
- some feel as if the universal salvation are unjust
- hilter and stalin are allowed to go to heaven after killing millions of people with the poelpe thye tortured
what does the immensity and suffering and unequal ditribution of evil and suffering mean when disvalidatingt ireaneaus theodicy
- some poeple live in luxury whilst some live in extreme suffering - how can that be equal if we all need to earn the likeness of god
