P1 Whoever creates unnecessarily, or allows evil in their creation does not create well. P2 God created unnecessarily and allowed evil in the creation. C1 God did not create well.
Introducing the Problem Journalist and best-selling author Lee Strobel commissioned George Barna, the public-opinion pollster, to conduct a nationwide survey. The survey included the question "If you could ask God only one question and you knew he would give you an answer, what would you ask?
If God is all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly good, why does he let so many bad things happen? This question raises what philosophers call "the problem of evil. As it is, however, thousands of good-hearted, innocent people experience the ravages of violent crime, terminal disease, and other evils.
Michael Petersonp. An earthquake kills hundreds in Peru. A pancreatic cancer patient suffers prolonged, excruciating pain and dies. A pit bull attacks a two-year-old child, angrily ripping his flesh and killing him.
Countless multitudes suffer the ravages of war in Somalia. A crazed cult leader pushes eighty-five people to their deaths in Waco, Texas. Millions starve and die in North Korea as famine ravages the land. Horrible things of all kinds happen in our world—and that has been the story since the dawn of civilization.
They claim that, since there is something morally problematic about a morally perfect God allowing all of the evil and suffering we see, there must not be a morally perfect God after all.
Mackie and McCloskey can be understood as claiming that it is impossible for all of the following statements to be true at the same time: Any two or three of them might be true at the same time; but there is no way that all of them could be true.
In other words, 1 through 4 form a logically inconsistent set. What does it mean to say that something is logically inconsistent? None of the statements in 1 through 4 directly contradicts any other, so if the set is logically inconsistent, it must be because we can deduce a contradiction from it.
This is precisely what atheologians claim to be able to do. Atheologians claim that a contradiction can easily be deduced from 1 through 4 once we think through the implications of the divine attributes cited in 1 through 3. They reason as follows: Statements 6 through 8 jointly imply that if the perfect God of theism really existed, there would not be any evil or suffering.
However, as we all know, our world is filled with a staggering amount of evil and suffering. Atheologians claim that, if we reflect upon 6 through 8 in light of the fact of evil and suffering in our world, we should be led to the following conclusions: From 9 through 11 we can infer: Since evil and suffering obviously do exist, we get: Putting the point more bluntly, this line of argument suggests that—in light of the evil and suffering we find in our world—if God exists, he is either impotent, ignorant or wicked.
It should be obvious that 13 conflicts with 1 through 3 above. To make the conflict more clear, we can combine 12 and 3 into the following single statement.
There is no way that 13 and 14 could both be true at the same time. These statements are logically inconsistent or contradictory. Statement 14 is simply the conjunction of 1 through 3 and expresses the central belief of classical theism.
However, atheologians claim that statement 13 can also be derived from 1 through 3. Because a contradiction can be deduced from statements 1 through 4 and because all theists believe 1 through 4atheologians claim that theists have logically inconsistent beliefs. They note that philosophers have always believed it is never rational to believe something contradictory.
So, the existence of evil and suffering makes theists' belief in the existence of a perfect God irrational.
Can the believer in God escape from this dilemma? According to this proposal, God is not ignoring your suffering when he doesn't act to prevent it because—as an all-knowing God—he knows about all of your suffering.
As a perfectly good God, he also feels your pain. The problem is that he can't do anything about it because he's not omnipotent.
Denying the truth of either 123 or 4 is certainly one way for the theist to escape from the logical problem of evil, but it would not be a very palatable option to many theists.Answer: Broadly stated, the “problem of evil” is the seeming contradiction between an all-powerful, all-loving God and the human experience of suffering and evil in the world.
Critics claim that the existence of evil is proof that the omnipotent, omnibenevolent God of the Bible cannot exist. 31 This is not to say that the best possible world does not include the eventual eradication of evil (see Rev –4), but rather the best possible world cannot include the absence of evil from world history.
32 No One Like Him, The claim that the actual world is the best of all possible worlds is the central argument in Leibniz's theodicy, or his attempt to solve the problem of evil.
Problem of evil. Among his many philosophical interests and concerns, Leibniz took on this question of theodicy: If God is. The presence of evil, pain and suffering in our world is the most persistent argument raised against theism. The following are several of the main responses to the presence of evil in the world and its impact on the existence of the God of the Bible.
For arguments that Christian theism has the best answer to the problem of evil among the competing worldviews, see chaps2,3, and 6 in Chad Meister, Building Belief: Constructing Faith from the Ground Up (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, ). Since all the premises are right, then Leibniz concluded, "The universe that God chose to exist is the best of all possible worlds".
To set his argument, Leibniz wrestled with the problem of sin and evil in the world that obviously exists and is considered as the imperfection of the world.