When Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote his great Summa Theologica, he could find only two objections to the existence of God, even though he tried to list at least three objections to every one of the thousands in that enormous work. One of the two objections is the apparent ability of natural science to explain everything in our experience without God; and the other is the problem of evil. The problemof evil is the question of how to explain evil if a deity exists that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. There are two main arguments to the problem of evil, the logical and the evidential.
Epicurus is credited for the first formulation of the logical problem of evil. His idea can be schematized as follows: If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not. Thereis evil in the world. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist. Some philosophers later made refinements to Epicurus’ scheme: God exists. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which anevil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists. Evil exists (logicalcontradiction).
The evidential version of the problem of evil, on the other hand, considers the possibility of a God. An example of this version of the problem of evil is explained by Paul Draper: Gratuitous evils exist. The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for than theism. Therefore,evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists. These arguments are probability judgments since they rely on the claim that, even after careful reflection, one can see no good reason for God’s permission of evil. The inference from this claim to the judgment that there exists gratuitous evil is inductive in nature. It is the inductive step that sets the evidential argument apartfrom the logical argument.
Almost every religion has devised a reason for evil. An example, and one of the earliest recorded responses, was the beliefs of Ancient Mesopotamia’s Polytheists. Their polytheistic society believed that evil such as massive suffering was due to the Gods battling for control. Gnosticists think that evil is due to an imperfect God, Hindus present the idea of Karma, tothe founder of Christian Science, evil, was not some "thing," to be known by Truth as reality, but the hypothetical absence of good.
There have been numerous explanations to the issue, largely created by the GMS throughout the years. The free will argument is probably the most popular explanation and is as follows: God's creation of persons with morally significant free will is something oftremendous value. God could not eliminate evil and suffering without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will who can make moral choices. Plantinga's free will defense is the most famous response to the logical problem of evil. In its complete form it is a long and a rather technical logical argument, as is the logical argument from evil it seeks to answer. But hismain point is the proposition that it was not within God's power to actualize a world containing moral good (or as much moral good as does exist) without actualizing one containing moral evil.
A few proclaimed reasons for natural evils, floods, earthquakes, other natural disasters, include that they are caused by the free choices of supernatural beings such as demons. However, I found that...
Leer documento completo
Regístrate para leer el documento completo.