Problem Of Evil Essay
Diego Luna
Philosophy 192
Dr. Gallo
22 May, 2015
The Problem of Evil The problem of evil may be described as a theory or conclusion that there is no God of the universe. Although the teleological argument can prove the existence of any God, the problem of evil simply states that if there was a God who was a “Perfect Being” then there should be no evil in the universe. According to the power point of the problem of evil, it says if God was a “Perfect Being,” that means he would be omniscient, omnipotent, morally good and the creator of the universe. With this being said, the argument is constructed in the way that proves God does not exist. The power point summarizes the idea that God being omniscient makes him see the future allowing him to …show more content…
foresee evil. If God was omnipotent he could stop evil from happening. If God was perfectly good then he would bring a stop to evil. The only problem with this argument comes down to there is evil in this universe creating the speculation that there is no “Perfect Being” who is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz wrote the book Theodicy, according to the power point on Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, which in general defends God and gives reason to why he does not protect the world from all evil. Leibniz mentions a phrase which stands out to me and it says, “[…] the best plan is not always that which seeks to avoid evil.” In the power point, Leibniz refutes many objections that were given and with this, he came across an objection which summarized the idea that God lacked knowledge, power or goodness. It is understandable how this argument is valid, but Leibniz thought otherwise. He states the idea that “[…] evil is accompanied by a greater good.”
With that being said, he also provides examples that allow us to understand how this statement counters the first premise.
The first example the power point gave involves analogy of a general and God. It states how a general would rather have a victory with a few of his men wounded than lose and have no wounded. The act of free will was displayed in Leibniz second example using Adam. In the power point Leibniz states God would have to act in “extraordinary ways” to correct evil allowing Adam to create a sin in which we consider Felix Culpa or the happy sin of Adam. This would just continue to prove the theory that even when evil is committed; there is a good that comes with …show more content…
it.
In a way, I agree with Leibniz argument because when I think about the idea of sin and how God could prevent it, it makes sense that God would have to act in ways just to avoid or correct sin. The analogy of the general was weak in my opinion mainly because wounds heal and an analogy between God and a general is not relatable. The idea was good mainly because I could think of other ways I have gone a wrong path just to end with a good result. A simple example would be taking classes that I knew would create stress and fatigue, but the outcome was getting into the school I wanted. It would not be the best example, but I chose a difficult path, but it led to my goal or dream school.
Leibniz also argues that he believes there is more good than evil in the whole work of God. I believe that he supports this argument by calling the first premise of objection two a fallacy mainly because there is the assumption that all of God’s intelligent creatures contain more evil than good. Leibniz later states in the power point that they left behind the non-intelligent creatures which may overpower the evil in those composed in the intelligent creatures creating the fallacy. I do not find this argument convincing only because in the class discussion it came to my attention that it is easier to name people that did evil things like Hitler or a serial killer and it is difficult to name those who did good things in the world. In my case, I find it easier to remember all the bad things that happened to me or I did than remembering the good things I did, but that is just me and I cannot speak for everyone else.
Hume stated the idea that there are dangerous consequences when you compare God to humans. His idea of the dangerous consequence was based on his belief that if there is some sort of evil in the world or there are any complications involving the world then that says a lot about the intelligent designer, in this case God. Hume goes against everything Leibniz says in the power point, about Hume, on evil and this power point says his technique used to refute Leibniz is through the theory of Philo and Demea stating “[…] the world is filled with misery […]” I felt that the idea was based upon believing that pain has a greater impact than good. An example used by Hume and Philo would be toothaches or worse case scenario hospitals full of disease etc. The overall idea that came to mind with Hume’s argument was Leibniz claims God would not interfere because he allow us to make our own choices and if he was to interfere, he would have to act in ways that we would find sinful. If God has the power to fix and see sin happening before anyone could, then he believes that God must not be good reason being he does not want to prevent the evil from happening or he must not exist.
John Hick also tries to contribute to the problem of evil when antitheistic writers made an argument concerning God. They stated in the power point, John Hick Evil and Soul Making, that a loving God’s purpose is to create a “hedonistic paradise” meaning a world that is pleasurable and worth living in, but because the world is not that pleasurable it must mean there is no God that is loving or as powerful to make that world. Replying to this argument, Hick believed the antitheists are comparing God and the creation of the universe to a human making a house for a pet. The power point continues with Hick’s argument by stating there is a far greater that is “Is this kind of world that God might make an environment in which moral beings might be fashioned, through their own free insights and responses, into ‘children of God’?” Adding to this argument, Hick states that we cannot compare heaven to a perfect place, like Hume did, instead we need to realize what is perfect for oneself. Concluding his argument, Hick makes his own analogy making God into a father figure. He talks about letting his children make their own soul-making and mature on their own rather than believe that we need to live in a hedonistic paradise as the antitheist believe.
In my opinion, Hick’s argument does not refute Hume’s argument in the way that he did not prove any false premises. The way I saw it, Hick gave another opinion or possible solution on how we should see the world. They both see the flaws with God being real or not, but they do not really deny it in a way. Hick just brought the idea of finding the perfect world for oneself other than thinking about God’s only purpose which is to create the perfect world.
In my opinion, Leibniz and Hick made many possible contributions to solving the problem of evil, but they have not solved the problem in general.
The reason I say this is because in Leibniz’s argument, he mentions the analogy of a general and God. To many it would seem reasonable to agree with a general winning war with only a few wounded. To be honest I believe the answer may change for some people if it were to say a general would rather get a victory with some soldiers dead rather than lose a war with no deaths. The way I do agree he contributed to solving the problem of evil would be the idea he gave on not all bad choices are evil. Leibniz said instead of avoiding every evil, some cannot really be avoided and evil paths may have good consequences in the end. God’s involvement may lead to bad actions just to correct us all the time creating problems and new theories on
God.
As for Hick, I feel that his argument is weak based on the idea that people who do not believe in God and argue that there is no God will continue to bring up the topic about God foreseeing everything and having the possibility to prevent a sin from happening. He does not say God is real or not, but instead said our main purpose is to worry about ourselves and finding our own inner selves and life of eternal worth. This state is known as going from bios to zoe making it a reasonable contribution to solving the problem of all evil, but not completely finding the solution.
Philosophy 192
Dr. Gallo
22 May, 2015
The Problem of Evil The problem of evil may be described as a theory or conclusion that there is no God of the universe. Although the teleological argument can prove the existence of any God, the problem of evil simply states that if there was a God who was a “Perfect Being” then there should be no evil in the universe. According to the power point of the problem of evil, it says if God was a “Perfect Being,” that means he would be omniscient, omnipotent, morally good and the creator of the universe. With this being said, the argument is constructed in the way that proves God does not exist. The power point summarizes the idea that God being omniscient makes him see the future allowing him to …show more content…
foresee evil. If God was omnipotent he could stop evil from happening. If God was perfectly good then he would bring a stop to evil. The only problem with this argument comes down to there is evil in this universe creating the speculation that there is no “Perfect Being” who is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz wrote the book Theodicy, according to the power point on Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, which in general defends God and gives reason to why he does not protect the world from all evil. Leibniz mentions a phrase which stands out to me and it says, “[…] the best plan is not always that which seeks to avoid evil.” In the power point, Leibniz refutes many objections that were given and with this, he came across an objection which summarized the idea that God lacked knowledge, power or goodness. It is understandable how this argument is valid, but Leibniz thought otherwise. He states the idea that “[…] evil is accompanied by a greater good.”
With that being said, he also provides examples that allow us to understand how this statement counters the first premise.
The first example the power point gave involves analogy of a general and God. It states how a general would rather have a victory with a few of his men wounded than lose and have no wounded. The act of free will was displayed in Leibniz second example using Adam. In the power point Leibniz states God would have to act in “extraordinary ways” to correct evil allowing Adam to create a sin in which we consider Felix Culpa or the happy sin of Adam. This would just continue to prove the theory that even when evil is committed; there is a good that comes with …show more content…
it.
In a way, I agree with Leibniz argument because when I think about the idea of sin and how God could prevent it, it makes sense that God would have to act in ways just to avoid or correct sin. The analogy of the general was weak in my opinion mainly because wounds heal and an analogy between God and a general is not relatable. The idea was good mainly because I could think of other ways I have gone a wrong path just to end with a good result. A simple example would be taking classes that I knew would create stress and fatigue, but the outcome was getting into the school I wanted. It would not be the best example, but I chose a difficult path, but it led to my goal or dream school.
Leibniz also argues that he believes there is more good than evil in the whole work of God. I believe that he supports this argument by calling the first premise of objection two a fallacy mainly because there is the assumption that all of God’s intelligent creatures contain more evil than good. Leibniz later states in the power point that they left behind the non-intelligent creatures which may overpower the evil in those composed in the intelligent creatures creating the fallacy. I do not find this argument convincing only because in the class discussion it came to my attention that it is easier to name people that did evil things like Hitler or a serial killer and it is difficult to name those who did good things in the world. In my case, I find it easier to remember all the bad things that happened to me or I did than remembering the good things I did, but that is just me and I cannot speak for everyone else.
Hume stated the idea that there are dangerous consequences when you compare God to humans. His idea of the dangerous consequence was based on his belief that if there is some sort of evil in the world or there are any complications involving the world then that says a lot about the intelligent designer, in this case God. Hume goes against everything Leibniz says in the power point, about Hume, on evil and this power point says his technique used to refute Leibniz is through the theory of Philo and Demea stating “[…] the world is filled with misery […]” I felt that the idea was based upon believing that pain has a greater impact than good. An example used by Hume and Philo would be toothaches or worse case scenario hospitals full of disease etc. The overall idea that came to mind with Hume’s argument was Leibniz claims God would not interfere because he allow us to make our own choices and if he was to interfere, he would have to act in ways that we would find sinful. If God has the power to fix and see sin happening before anyone could, then he believes that God must not be good reason being he does not want to prevent the evil from happening or he must not exist.
John Hick also tries to contribute to the problem of evil when antitheistic writers made an argument concerning God. They stated in the power point, John Hick Evil and Soul Making, that a loving God’s purpose is to create a “hedonistic paradise” meaning a world that is pleasurable and worth living in, but because the world is not that pleasurable it must mean there is no God that is loving or as powerful to make that world. Replying to this argument, Hick believed the antitheists are comparing God and the creation of the universe to a human making a house for a pet. The power point continues with Hick’s argument by stating there is a far greater that is “Is this kind of world that God might make an environment in which moral beings might be fashioned, through their own free insights and responses, into ‘children of God’?” Adding to this argument, Hick states that we cannot compare heaven to a perfect place, like Hume did, instead we need to realize what is perfect for oneself. Concluding his argument, Hick makes his own analogy making God into a father figure. He talks about letting his children make their own soul-making and mature on their own rather than believe that we need to live in a hedonistic paradise as the antitheist believe.
In my opinion, Hick’s argument does not refute Hume’s argument in the way that he did not prove any false premises. The way I saw it, Hick gave another opinion or possible solution on how we should see the world. They both see the flaws with God being real or not, but they do not really deny it in a way. Hick just brought the idea of finding the perfect world for oneself other than thinking about God’s only purpose which is to create the perfect world.
In my opinion, Leibniz and Hick made many possible contributions to solving the problem of evil, but they have not solved the problem in general.
The reason I say this is because in Leibniz’s argument, he mentions the analogy of a general and God. To many it would seem reasonable to agree with a general winning war with only a few wounded. To be honest I believe the answer may change for some people if it were to say a general would rather get a victory with some soldiers dead rather than lose a war with no deaths. The way I do agree he contributed to solving the problem of evil would be the idea he gave on not all bad choices are evil. Leibniz said instead of avoiding every evil, some cannot really be avoided and evil paths may have good consequences in the end. God’s involvement may lead to bad actions just to correct us all the time creating problems and new theories on
God.
As for Hick, I feel that his argument is weak based on the idea that people who do not believe in God and argue that there is no God will continue to bring up the topic about God foreseeing everything and having the possibility to prevent a sin from happening. He does not say God is real or not, but instead said our main purpose is to worry about ourselves and finding our own inner selves and life of eternal worth. This state is known as going from bios to zoe making it a reasonable contribution to solving the problem of all evil, but not completely finding the solution.