The problem of evil

Question 1

What is the problem of evil?

Answer 1

The problem of evil uses the existence of evil in the world to argue that God (as defined in the concept of God) does not exist.

Question 2

Define moral evil

Answer 2

evil that comes about due to human actions

Question 3

Define natural evil

Answer 3

evil that comes about independent of human intervention

Question 4

What is the logical problem of evil?

Answer 4

The logical problem of evil is a deductive argument that says the existence of God is logically impossible given the existence of evil in the world.

Question 5

Outline the logical problem of evil, formally stated.

Answer 5

P1- If God is supremely good, then he has the desire to eliminate evil
P2- If God is omnipotent, then he is able to eliminate evil
P3- If God is omniscient, then he knows evil exists and knows how to eliminate it
C1- therefore, If god exist, and is supremely good, omnipotent and omniscient, then God will eliminate evil
C2- Therefore, if a supremely good, omnipotent and omniscient God exists, evil does not exist
P4- evil exists
C3- Therefore, a supremely good, omnipotent God does not exist.

Question 6

Describe the inconsistent triangle

Answer 6

P1: If God exists then God is omnipotent
P2: If god exists then God is omnibenevolent
P3: If God is all powerful and all good, then there would be no evil. ( as God is able and willing to prevent it.)
P4: There is evil
C: Therefore God does not exist
Logically, maximum of two are true.

Question 7

Reply 1: good couldn’t exist without evil

Answer 7

“you can’t appreciate the good times without experiencing some bad times”.
This is basically what this reply says: without evil, good couldn’t exist.

Question 8

Mackie’s response to reply 1

Answer 8

Why can’t we have good without evil?
Imagine if we lived in a world where everything was red. We wouldn’t have created a word for ‘red’, nor would we know what it meant if someone tried to explain it to us. But it would still be the case that everything is red, we just wouldn’t know.
–> God could have created a world in which there was no evil. We wouldn’t have the concept of good/evil. But it would still be the case that everything is good – we just wouldn’t be aware of it.

Question 9

Reply 2: the world is better with some evil than none at all

Answer 9

You could develop reply 1 above to argue that some evil is necessary for certain types of good. For example, you couldn’t be courageous (good) without having to overcome fear of pain, death, etc. (evil).

Question 10

What are first and second order goods? (reply 2)

Answer 10

First order good: e.g. pleasure
Second order good: e.g. courage
The argument is that second order goods seek to maximise first order goods. And second order goods are more valuable than first order goods. But without first order evils, second order goods couldn’t exist.

Question 11

Mackie’s response to reply 2

Answer 11

say we accept that first order evil is necessary for second order good to exist. How do you explain second order evil?

Second order evils seek to maximise first order evils such as pain. So, for example, malevolence or cruelty are examples of second order evils.

But we could still have a world in which people were courageous (second order good) in overcoming pain (first order evil) without these second order evils. So why would an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God allow the existence of second order evils if there is no greater good in doing so?

Question 12

Link Mackie to Plantiga

Answer 12

Even Mackie himself admits that God’s existence is not logically incompatible with some evil (first order evil) (response to reply 2)
Plantinga argues, however, that it’s logically possible (which is all we need to show to defeat the logical problem of evil) that God would allow second order evil for a greater good. His argument is as follows:

Question 13

PROBLEMS for logical problem of evil : Alvin Plantinga: God, Freedom and Evil

Answer 13

Plantinga argues that we don’t need a plausible theodicy to defeat the logical problem of evil. All we need to show is that the existence of evil is not logically inconsistent with an omnipotent and omnibelevolent God.

Question 14

Free will defence formally stated

Answer 14

P1: A world containing creatures that are significantly free is better than a world containing no free creatures.
P2: God can create significantly free creatures.
P3: To be significantly free is to be capable of both moral good and moral evil.
P4: If significantly free creatures were caused to do only what’s right, they would not be free.
C1: Therefore, God cannot cause significantly free creatures to do only what is right.
C2: Therefore God cannot create a world containing creatures that are significantly free but which contains no evil.
C3: Therefore, God can only eliminate the moral evil done by significantly free creatures by eliminating the greater good of significantly free creatures.

Question 15

What is the key point of the Free will defence

Answer 15

Free will is inherently good, so significant free will could outweigh the negative of people using that significant free will to commit second order evils.
So the existence of evil can be compatible with God’s existence as an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God.

Question 16

Problem with the free will defence.

Answer 16

The free will defence above explains why an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would allow moral evil. But it doesn’t explain natural evil.
When innocent people are killed in natural disasters, it doesn’t seem this is the result of free will. So, even if an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would allow moral evil, why does this kind of evil exist as well?

Question 17

Plantinga sewer to the problem of natural evil with free will defence.

Answer 17

Plantinga argues that it’s possible natural evil is the result of non-human actors such as Satan, fallen angels, demons, etc. This would make natural evil another form of moral evil, the existence of which would be explained by free will.
Even if this doesn’t sound very plausible, it’s at least possible. And remember, Plantinga’s argument is that we only need to show evil is not logically inconsistent with God’s existence to defeat the logical problem of evil.

Question 18

My conclusion on the Logical problem of evil

Answer 18

FAILS to disprove God as free will defence succeeds and even though it doesn’t deal with natural evil Plantinga proposes demons, which still makes the whole thing plausible, which is all we need to defeat the argument.

Question 19

What is the evidential problem of evil?

Answer 19

The evidential problem of evil is an inductive argument which says that, while it is logically possible that God exists, the amount of evil and unfair ways it is distributed in our world is pretty strong evidence that God doesn’t exist.

Question 20

Explain the evidential problem of evil further

Answer 20

We can reject the logical problem of evil and accept that God would allow some evil. But would an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God allow so much evil? And to people so undeserving of it?
The evidential problem of evil argues that if God did exist, there would be less evil and it would be less concentrated among those undeserving of it.

Question 21

Explain the ‘most reasonable hypothesis’ argument from the evidential problem of evil

Answer 21

It asks given the existence of evil which is the most reasonable hypothesis
Hypothesis 1- There is an infinitely powerful, wholly good God who created the world
Hypothesis 2- there is no such God

Question 22

Problems: Free will (again)

Answer 22

Sure, God could have made a world with less evil. But this would mean less free will. And on balance, having free will creates more good than the evil it also creates.

Question 23

Possible response to the free will (again) problem

Answer 23

Maybe God would allow some evil for the greater good of free will. But it seems possible – simple, even – that God could have created a world with less evil than our world without sacrificing the greater good of free will.

EG the same amount of free will, but with 1% less cancer. God could have created this world, so why didn’t He?

The evidential problem of evil could insist that the amount of evil – or unfair ways it is distributed – could easily be reduced without sacrificing some greater good, and so it seems unlikely that God exists, in this world, given this particular distribution of evil.

Question 24

conclusion of the evidential problem of evil

Answer 24

SUCCEEDS to provide INDUCTIVE arguement against God, not as certain as logical problem, but logical problem fails anyway. Also there is very little that we believe in based on abolute 100000% certainty, so this is a sufficient arguement argainst God’s existence.

Question 25

Why do I think the evidential problem of evil is a better problem from God existing than the logical problem of evil?

Answer 25

It can survive the free will defence
(The evidential problem of evil could insist that the amount of evil – or unfair ways it is distributed – could easily be reduced without sacrificing some greater good, and so it seems unlikely that God exists, in this world, given this particular distribution of evil. )
This way, it shows that it is unlikely as it is possible for God to exist and evil to exist at the same time but shows that this means it is unlikely since God could improve the world a little bit without compromising the greater good of free will, which the Logical problem of evil cannot do because it is immediately defeated when you show that there is some way in which God with his attributes can exist alongside evil

Question 26

theodicy

Answer 26

an explanation of why an omniscient God would permit evil.