Outline The Problem Of Evil
Studies in the Philosophy of Religion
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
"God is the omnipotent and wholly good creator of all things"
"There is evil in the world"
a) EXPLAIN THESE TWO STATEMENTS AND SHOW WHY THEY ARE SAID TO BE CONTRADICTORY (20)
The problem of evil is usually seen as the problem of how the existence of God can be reconciled with the existence of evil in the world. It's regarded as a logical problem, because it is based on the apparent contradiction involved in holding onto three incompatible beliefs. This being that God is omnipotent, that God is wholly good and that evil exists in the world. The fact that evil exists in the world constitutes the most common objection to the belief in the existence of the omnipotent (all powerful), …show more content…
For example doctors, if people didn't get ill then doctors wouldn't learn how to respond to and deal with the illness. However this presents problems as if God had made the world wouldn't he have made a world in which things didn't go wrong, if God is all knowing and all powerful why couldn't he have made a "perfect world" in which nothing went wrong? The answer to this of course is that there can't be such a thing as a perfect world, it's logically impossible and as we have already established God can't do what is logically impossible. The concept of a perfect world is logically impossible because of the perfect island argument as proposed in criticism to Anselm's Ontological argument. It's proposed that you can't always imagine something more perfect so therefore it can't be. Also if the world were a paradise from which all possibility of pain and suffering were excluded the consequences would be quite inconceivable. For example, no one could ever injure anyone else, "the murderers knife would turn to paper or the bullets to thin air". The bank safe would miraculously be refilled once robbed and such evils, as fraud, deceit and conspiracy would leave society undamaged. People couldn't be injured through accidents; the falling child would simply float unharmed to the ground. People wouldn't become ill because of disease or suffer upset. To make …show more content…
Sometimes obstacles result in ones character being strengthened but other times they can be crushing leading to ones character being diminished and left incompetent so unable to grow and develop further. So it would seem any soul making is subject to an individual's temperament and particular way of dealing with a problem. Therefore this doesn't remove the contradiction, because there's evidence of people suffering and not getting better after it. This produces more problems as shows God to be selecting people who he should know would suffer immensely because of this evil. Irenaeus approach takes the blame off God for human suffering. This is what is needed to solve the problem of evil. He places the blame on human free will therefore avoiding questions of God's nature so in essence removing the contradiction. People accept that suffering is there for a reason and it's part of God's plan for soul
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
"God is the omnipotent and wholly good creator of all things"
"There is evil in the world"
a) EXPLAIN THESE TWO STATEMENTS AND SHOW WHY THEY ARE SAID TO BE CONTRADICTORY (20)
The problem of evil is usually seen as the problem of how the existence of God can be reconciled with the existence of evil in the world. It's regarded as a logical problem, because it is based on the apparent contradiction involved in holding onto three incompatible beliefs. This being that God is omnipotent, that God is wholly good and that evil exists in the world. The fact that evil exists in the world constitutes the most common objection to the belief in the existence of the omnipotent (all powerful), …show more content…
For example doctors, if people didn't get ill then doctors wouldn't learn how to respond to and deal with the illness. However this presents problems as if God had made the world wouldn't he have made a world in which things didn't go wrong, if God is all knowing and all powerful why couldn't he have made a "perfect world" in which nothing went wrong? The answer to this of course is that there can't be such a thing as a perfect world, it's logically impossible and as we have already established God can't do what is logically impossible. The concept of a perfect world is logically impossible because of the perfect island argument as proposed in criticism to Anselm's Ontological argument. It's proposed that you can't always imagine something more perfect so therefore it can't be. Also if the world were a paradise from which all possibility of pain and suffering were excluded the consequences would be quite inconceivable. For example, no one could ever injure anyone else, "the murderers knife would turn to paper or the bullets to thin air". The bank safe would miraculously be refilled once robbed and such evils, as fraud, deceit and conspiracy would leave society undamaged. People couldn't be injured through accidents; the falling child would simply float unharmed to the ground. People wouldn't become ill because of disease or suffer upset. To make …show more content…
Sometimes obstacles result in ones character being strengthened but other times they can be crushing leading to ones character being diminished and left incompetent so unable to grow and develop further. So it would seem any soul making is subject to an individual's temperament and particular way of dealing with a problem. Therefore this doesn't remove the contradiction, because there's evidence of people suffering and not getting better after it. This produces more problems as shows God to be selecting people who he should know would suffer immensely because of this evil. Irenaeus approach takes the blame off God for human suffering. This is what is needed to solve the problem of evil. He places the blame on human free will therefore avoiding questions of God's nature so in essence removing the contradiction. People accept that suffering is there for a reason and it's part of God's plan for soul