PROBLEM OF EVIL

The Problem of Evil and God

Problem of Evil

The Problem of Evil an argument of reconciling the existence of evil in the world with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good God (Adams and Marilyn, Pp. 125-128). If one were to take away God's omniscience, omnipotence, or benevolence, they would be taking away his authority as God (Lewis, Pp. 95-99). A German Philosopher named Gottfried Leibniz was one of the first philosophers to use theodicy in order to argue that evil in the world does not conflict with the goodness of God.

A theodicy is an attempt to provide a plausible justification for the evidential existence of evil (Lewis, Pp. 95-99). Many questions have been asked concerning the problem of evil, but what is evil? Theologian Augustine of Hippo answers this question by saying that evil is the absence of good, just as darkness is the absence of light. Evil, according to Augustine, can only be referred to as a negative form of a good thing (Davis and Stephen, Pp. 412-423). Where, then, did this evil come from? According to Augustine, if evil is simply the absence of of good, then God cannot be blamed for bringing evil into existence; evil is not a thing and so was never brought into existence. Nash (Pp. 147-151)states that positive bad states could be removed by God if he chose to remove them, and however much good God creates, he could create more, but has no obligation to do so. Nash (Pp. 147-151) divides evil into moral evil and natural evil.

Lewis (Pp. 95-99) understands natural evil as evil which is not deliberately produced by humans to occur as a result of their negligence. This includes physical suffering and mental suffering of animals as well as humans. He understands moral evil as evil caused deliberately by human beings doing what they ought not to do and also evil constituted by such deliberate actions or negligent failure. This includes sensory pain as well as mental pain.

Why would a good God allow moral and natural evil to occur? The most common argument for moral evil is the free-will defense (Davis and Stephen, Pp. 412-423). God could not eliminate evil and suffering without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created beings with free will that can make moral choices (Adams and Marilyn, Pp.125-128).

The free choices that human beings have include genuine responsibility for others, which includes opportunities to either benefit or harm them (Snyder, 305-309). A good God would not limit our responsibility for others, but a good God will delegate responsibility (Lewis, Pp. 95-99). He did this in order to let us share in creation which involves the choice of hurting and frustrating the divine plan.

God could not give us this choice without the possibility of evil resulting. The possibility of humans bringing about significant evil is a logical consequence of their having this free and responsible choice (Nash, Pp. 147-151).

The Bible teaches that God gave the first man and ...