The problem of evil Flashcards
What is the problem of evil?
Theists do not tend to have a problem with the existence of evil, but it is common for people to question the existence of god when bad things happen to good people. Surely the omnipotence, omnibenevolent and omniscient god of classical theism would stop such evil?
What is natural evil?
Evil created by natural events such as the 2018 Indonesian earthquake.
What is moral evil?
Evils created by human actions, such as 9/11, these are typically easier to explain away as just humans misusing their free will.
How do various religions see evil?
All speak of the difference between good and evil, in Islam, we are all born with the ability to choose between the right path of Allah’s guidance or the wrong path of the temptations of shaytan. In Buddhism, evil is something we create ourselves.
What are the three possibilities Epicurus gives in his logical problem of evil?
- God knows about evil, can stop it, but does not want to, so is not omnibenevolent. 2. God can stop evil and wants to, but does not know about it, so is not omniscient. 3. God knows about evil and wants to stop it, but is unable to, so is not omnipotent.
What does Epicurus conclude?
Either god is not all good, not all powerful and not all loving, so is not the god of classical theism, or does not exist at all.
How does Mackie expand upon the logical problem of evil with his own deductive argument?
He calls it a logical inconsistency as god being all loving, all knowing and all powerful and evil existing cannot be true at the same time. If god was all loving, he would want to stop evil, if he was all knowing, he would know how to and if he was all powerful, he would be able to. Ergo, there is no god or he is not the god of classical theism.
What is Hume’s logical problem of evil?
God is not omnipotent, or, god is not omniscient, or, evil does not exist. As evil does exist, the god of classical theism does not.
What are mackie’s ‘adequate’ solutions?
They avoid the problem by changing the definition of god to limit him, or arguing that evil is an illusion. These solutions are inadequate as they are guilty of inconsistency because when believers practice their religion, they reassert the idea that god is omnipotent.
What are mackie’s fallacious solutions?
They try to solve the problem whilst keeping the traditional definition of god, they are fallacious as they weaken their beliefs in order for their argument to work, they skip between two beliefs in order to cover up for the fact that they are abandoning one of them.
What is the paradox of omnipotence?
Can an omnipotent being create something he cannot control? If the answer is no, he is not omnipotent. But if the answer is yes, he is still not omnipotent. It is the same as asking if a parliament can make a law limiting its own legislative power.
According to Mackie, can the paradox of omnipotence be solved?
It could theoretically be solved by positing an eternal god outside of space and time, but this would create new paradoxes as it is hard to see how a being with no past, present or future could change anything or create anything.
What does Mackie conclude about the problem of evil?
It can’t be solved, none of the solutions to it are satisfactory.
What is the evidential problem of evil?
Put forward by Mill and developed by Rowe, it is the idea that if the god of classical theism existed, he would stop the suffering of innocents and any unnecessary suffering,
What example does Rowe to give to explain the evidential problem of evil?
A baby deer is trapped in a forest fire and gets badly burned, it lies dying in agony for a few days until death relieves its suffering. Rowe asks what greater good could be served by the length and intensity of the fawn’s suffering, the fawn was completely innocent and no lesson can be learned from its suffering.
