Problem of Evil

Published: 2019-08-30 08:57:06
2084 words
8 pages
18 min to read
Type of paper: 
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

The greatest challenge that Christians are facing in the current world is the reality about the concept of suffering. This is the reason many are baffled to believe that God exists in the evil world (23). Traditionally, God is always regarded as a perfectly good God who is omnipotent and omniscient. It is the availability of the evil acts in the society that creates problems to the definition of God (Geisler 46). This is because people believe that of God is good and perfect as it is believed, why it is hard for him to eliminate evil. In addition, if he is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent (Geisler,34) why should he allow evil to exist instead of eliminating it from the society.

In this case, we can conclude that the fact that evil exists in the society, then it is questionable if an omnipotent perfect God also exists amongst us. The above problem can be approached in two ways. One is the logic problem of evil claiming that the existence of evil is not in line with the existence of a good God The second one is that God has the capacity to eliminate evil and the fact that evil is the source of our sufferings, God must eliminate the existence of evil in the society (Geisler 123). It is for this reason that the curious people ask the question if God is powerful and loving, why he should allow the occurrence of evil in the society (34). Despite the millions of answers that have been provided, these questions continue to raise more questions than answers. As a result of the rising questions in this question, it can, therefore, be contented that the fact that God is a good God, it is impossible for him to exist in an evil society at the same time with evil.

The problem of evil has a philosophical is not the fact that there is evil in the world. However, the problem of evil is not that there is so much evil in the world or there is a balance between evil and the world. Other people prefer to imagine that the problem of suffering compared to the problem of evil. Thus, how can one reconcile the existence of the high suffering with the existence of the most powerful God in the world? One of the philosophers who argued about this concept is David Hume whose contributions to the field of religion have a lasting effect that is also very importance. Hume rejects the truth of all the religions and depends on them as a way of guaranteeing truth (Kushner 210) . Despite the fact that Hume rejects the truth of the revealed religion, it further shows that when we are affected by the inappropriate passions, religion has a negative effect on morality in the society.

Hume also develops the standard objections and the analogical design by stating that most analogies were extracted from narrow analogies (23). Hume also defends a concept of the Problem of Evil, which state that the most powerful God can exist in a suffering world. According to Hume, the problem of evil is the theist case compared to the different objectives that he comes up with the designer. The discussion of the Problem primarily occurs in his dialogues ((Kushner 78). He presents the problem of evil in two perspectives that are in terms of prior probability as well as the likelihood of gratuitous evil.

Thus, he states the following about the problem of evil, God is both benevolent and the omnipotent creator, if God exists there are no chances that evil should be there, there is no evil in the world (27) and this is the reason Hume concludes that God does not exist. As a result, this he believes that God is either benevolent or omnipotent or either both. This is the reason it is not reasonable for people to believe that God exists. Further, in terms of the evil in the world, there is no way a creator can exist in the world that is full of evil (Geisler 22). Additionally, if God is a powerful God as we believe, and then what must he has done to make sure that the world is without evil. These are the ways that God could have done to make sure that evil was not part of the society.

Firstly, it is conceivable that God has purposes behind permitting evil to exist that we just can't get it. In this, the Christian can have trust in God realizing that His routes are over our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9). As the Bible says, the equitable might live by confidence(Hab. 2:4).Second, God might be letting malicious run its course keeping in mind the end goal to demonstrate that shrewd is dangerous and that anguish, which is the deplorable result of shrewdness, is additional evidence that anything as opposed to God's will is awful, hurtful, difficult, and prompts passing

Secondly, he should have made the world in a way that it was not necessary for any pain to be there to make sure there is self-preservation. It could have been easy to make the world in a way that that the laws of nature are applicable in a universal way and he could have also limited the force of nature that causes disorder. Despite the fact that there is no answer to these questions, many people have come up with the suggestions on how these questions should be answered (Kushner 34).

Descartes is also another philosopher who has multiple arguments about the capacity of God to exist in the evil world despite the fact that he is a powerful God. Descartes clarifies this by signifying that the fact that God allowed evil to exist, he has his own reasons for allowing evil to be part of the society. However, this is not the same reason as the has some morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. God is incapable of realizing the good part of freedom and the good things that come with freedom if he cannot permit people to misuse the freedom the way that we choose. Further, Descartes argues that God could have considered making us free, but make sure we are dependable in our judgments, (367) by manufacture the capacity of the brain supremacy immense adequate to give us comprehensible supervision concerning all the judgments that we make for ourselves Descartes' answer, I advocate, is an amalgamation of the "cynical atheist" and "full-scale picture" theodicy strategy. Descartes suggest that God was responsible for making us prone to mistake because this one way or another amplified the general worth of the creation as a complete (Poole 23). The fact that we can never clutch the complete cosmos or this superior fine for the sake that God permit unreliability is in standard far the skeptical strategy.

According to the arguments provided by both Hume and Descartes, as Christians, they all believe that it has God who created the world and all the things that are in the world However, God is believed to be a pure and one of the most powerful beings on the earth He is a holy God who punishes any wrong doers in the society. From this perception, it is hard to explain why God can accept to exist in the world that is full of evil since he is holy. Basing on the arguments provided by Hume, he brings out clear evidence regarding the existence of God in the evil world and through these arguments he tries to make it clear that it is not possible to exist at the same time with evil. The fact that Hume proves the characteristics of God when making this argument, he sounds reliable than Descartes whose arguments are not based on any logic foundation. Descartes seems to provide random reasons and explanations that cannot be attached to the reasons that are provided by God himself (Poole 256).

He goes further and argues that, in the event that we need God to stop evil and suffering, then He should stop every last bit of it. We have no issue with this when it implies ceasing a fiasco or a homicide or an assault. In any case, shouldn't something be said about when somebody considers something fiendish? Malice is ruinous whether it is carried on or not. Contempt and extremism in somebody's heart aren't right. On the off chance that it isn't right and if God is to stop all shrewd, then He should prevent that individual from intuition his own musings. To do that, God must expel his opportunity of thought. Besides, which individual on the earth has not thought something malicious? God would be obliged, then, to prevent all individuals from practicing their choice. This is something God has picked not to do. In this way, we could say that one reason that God grants abhorrent and enduring is that of man's through and through freedom(Poole 1)

They further conclude that evil is insubordination to God and His made request, yet God has not left only us in this fallen world. He kept on entering this world, directing us toward Himself, to truth, to profound quality, virtue, and affection. He utilized the insidiousness of the world (liars, liars, the desirous, and so on.) to convey His Son to the cross with the goal that we may have the chance to acquire unceasing life. In this, God has not ventured far from fallen creation but rather has ventured into it by getting to be Jesus. God works inside the fallen world to impact change, and He utilizes fallen individuals to fulfill His will. In this, He is demonstrating His power over detestable, enduring, and insubordinate individuals, demonstrating that wrongdoing and malice are absolutely purposeless and that He is deserving of honor and grandness(Poole 1)

The main question, in this case, is that why should God who is omnipotent be capable of creating another world that is contradictory? There are a number of solutions that can be provided to answer this question. The first answer to this question is that if God can create the world that is in contradictory to the current world, then the problem of evil will be unsolved because not everything will be possible. As a result, it would be absurd for one to holds that the omnipotent and the most powerful creature are capable of creating evil. If he is truly a perfect God as it is believed, then the cases of evil should not exist since everything is possible for the supreme God (Webb 24). Thus, a redefinition of omnipotence rules above in a way that people can hold omnipotent does not have the limits of the logical possibility. The second solution is the fact that there are two main supreme goods such as that of creation and the free will. These two goods are considered to be the highest in that the world that does not have these goods is considered as a depleted world. This world is also regarded as being less good or it does not meet the expected conditions. Therefore, it is necessary to live within the requirements of God so that one can be able to avoid the evil that is roaming in the society. Although the above explains how people should deal with evil in the society, the arguments have not exhausted on the origin of evil and fail to provide an explanation why God created evil (Webb 43).

Despite the above solutions, philosopher still grapples with the idea of evil in the society and the existence of God at the same time. These philosophers have remained contemplating about the origin of evil in the society, and question why God has to create evil knowing that he was a perfect God who cannot live in evil. The philosophers have argued within the natural setup to make sure the idea of evil and God existence in the society has been analyzed and well understood. Epicurus is one of the philosophers who analyze the problem of evil and the existence of God in connection with omnipotent, omnipresent and omnipresent. According to the problem of evil that was attributed to Epicurus, the fact that evil exists in the current world, then God who is powerful, all good, all loving and all loving cannot exist in such a world. In addition, if God existed in such worlds, he would have searched for ways of preventing the existence of evil. However, if we still believe that God exists at the same time with evil, then God is not...


Request Removal

If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal: