Causal Explanation Essay Topic Problems Of Evil

Resemblance 09.10.2019

Most think that if even one of these instances is gratuitous—pointless, that is—then God would not exist Howard-Snyder and Howard-Snyder So the theist must find an explanation or set of explanations that in principle could plausibly justify all evil.

Online proofreading course

Sometimes, on the other hand, it is to the existence of a certain amount of evil. And sometimes it is to the existence of evils of a certain specified sort. To formulate the argument from evil in terms of the mere existence of any evil at all is to abstract to the greatest extent possible from detailed information about the evils that are found in the world, and so one is assuming, in effect, that such information cannot be crucial for the argument. But is it clear that this is right? For might one not feel that while the world would be better off without the vast majority of evils, this is not so for absolutely all evils? Thus some would argue, for example, that the frustration that one experiences in trying to solve a difficult problem is outweighed by the satisfaction of arriving at a solution, and therefore that the world is a better place because it contains such evils. Alternatively, it has been argued that the world is a better place if people develop desirable traits of character—such as patience, and courage—by struggling against obstacles, including suffering. But if either of these things is the case, then the prevention of all evil might well make the world a worse place. It seems possible, then, that there might be evils that are logically necessary for goods that outweigh them, and this possibility provides a reason, accordingly, for questioning one of the premises in the argument set out earlier—namely, premise 4 , where it is claimed that if God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. But there is also another reason why that claim is problematic, which arises out of a particular conception of free will—namely, a libertarian conception. According to this view of free will, and in contrast with what are known as compatibilist approaches, free will is incompatible with determinism, and so it is impossible even for an omnipotent being to make it the case that someone freely chooses to do what is right. If this claim can be made plausible, one can argue, first, that God would have a good reason for creating a world with individuals who possessed libertarian free will, but secondly, that if he did choose to create such a world, even he could not ensure that no one would ever choose to do something morally wrong. The good of libertarian free will requires, in short, the possibility of moral evil. Neither of these lines of argument is immune from challenge. As regards the former, one can argue that the examples that are typically advanced of cases where some evil is logically necessary for a greater good that outweighs the evil are not really, upon close examination, convincing, while, as regards the latter, there is a serious problem of making sense of libertarian free will, for although there is no difficulty about the idea of actions that are not causally determined, libertarian free will requires more than the mere absence of determinism, and the difficulty arises when one attempts to say what that something more is. But although these challenges are important, and may very well turn out to be right, it is fair to say, first, that it has not yet been established that there is no coherent conception of libertarian free will, and, secondly, that it is, at least, very doubtful that one can establish that there cannot be cases where some evil is logically necessary for a greater good that outweighs it without appealing to some substantive, and probably controversial, moral theory. The upshot is that the idea that either the actuality of certain undesirable states of affairs, or at least the possibility, may be logically necessary for goods that outweigh them, is not without some initial plausibility, and if some such claim can be sustained, it will follow immediately that the mere existence of evil cannot be incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being. How does this bear upon evidential formulations of the argument from evil? The answer would seem to be that if there can be evils that are logically necessary for goods that outweigh them, then it is hard to see how the mere existence of evil—in the absence of further information—can provide much in the way of evidence against the existence of God. What if one shifts to a slightly less abstract formulation of the argument from evil that is based upon the premise that the world contains a certain amount of evil, or upon the premise that the world contains at least some natural evil? Then one is including marginally more information. But one is still assuming, in effect, that most of the detailed information about the evils found in the world is completely irrelevant to the argument from evil, and a little reflection brings out how very implausible this assumption is. So, for example, consider a world that contains a billion units of natural evil. Is this a good starting point for an argument from evil? The answer is that, if either a deontological approach to ethics is correct, or a form of consequentialism that takes the distribution of goods and evils into account, rather than, say, simply the total amount of goods and evils, whether this fact is an impressive reason for questioning the existence of God surely depends on further details about the world. If those billion units are uniformly distributed over trillions of people whose lives are otherwise extremely satisfying and ecstatically happy, it is not easy to see a serious problem of evil. But if, on the other hand, the billion units of natural evil fell upon a single innocent person, and produced a life that was, throughout, one of extraordinarily intense pain, then surely there would be a very serious problem of evil. Details concerning such things as how suffering and other evils are distributed over individuals, and the nature of those who undergo the evils, are, then, of crucial importance. Thus it is relevant, for example, that many innocent children suffer agonizing deaths. It is relevant that animals suffer, and that they did so before there were any persons to observe their suffering, and to feel sympathy for them. It is also relevant that, on the one hand, the suffering that people undergo apparently bears no relation to the moral quality of their lives, and, on the other, that it bears a very clear relation to the wealth and medical knowledge of the societies in which they live. The prospects for a successful abstract version of the argument from evil would seem, therefore, rather problematic. It is conceivable, of course, that the correct moral principles entail that there cannot be any evils whose actuality or possibility makes for a better world. But to attempt to set out a version of the argument from evil that requires a defense of that thesis is certainly to swim upstream. A much more promising approach, surely, is to focus, instead, simply upon those evils that are thought, by the vast majority of people, to pose at least a prima facie problem for the rationality of belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person. Given that the preceding observations are rather obvious ones, one might have expected that discussions of the argument from evil would have centered mainly upon concrete formulations of the argument. Rather surprisingly, that has not been so. Indeed, some authors seem to focus almost exclusively upon very abstract versions of the argument. That Plantinga initially focused upon abstract formulations of the argument from evil was not, perhaps, surprising, given that a number of writers—including Mackie, H. McCloskey , and H. Aiken —58 —had defended incompatibility versions of the argument from evil, and it is natural to formulate such arguments in an abstract way, since although one may wish to distinguish, for example, between natural evils and moral evils, reference to concrete cases of evil would not seem to add anything. But once one shifts to probabilistic formulations of the argument from evil, the situation is very different: details about concrete cases of evil may be evidentially crucial. The problem, then, is that Plantinga not only started out by focusing on very abstract versions of the argument from evil, but also maintained this focus throughout. The explanation of this may lie in the fact that Plantinga seems to have believed that if it can be shown that the existence of God is neither incompatible with, nor rendered improbable by, either 1 the mere existence of evil, or 2 the existence of a specified amount of evil, then no philosophical problem remains. For not only can the argument from evil be formulated in terms of specific evils, but that is the natural way to do so, given that it is only certain types of evils that are generally viewed as raising a serious problem with respect to the rationality of belief in God. To concentrate exclusively on abstract versions of the argument from evil is therefore to ignore the most plausible and challenging versions of the argument. For any state of affairs that is actual , the existence of that state of affairs is not prevented by anyone. For any state of affairs, and any person, if the state of affairs is intrinsically bad, and the person has the power to prevent that state of affairs without thereby either allowing an equal or greater evil, or preventing an equal or greater good, but does not do so, then that person is not both omniscient and morally perfect. Therefore, from 1 , 2 , and 3 : There is no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person. If God exists, then he is an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person. Therefore: God does not exist. As it stands, this argument is deductively valid. He is afraid, however, that the use of the will causes suffering in the world and turn the spontaneous universe into a mechanistic one bound by laws and virtues. Overcoming Evil The way of wu-wei, as the action of the Tao, suggests how one can confront the problem of evil and suffering in this present human life. In other words, the way of overcoming evil is a way of living. In a Taoist theology, the Tao is the source of all life. As the origin of life, the Tao originates, nurtures, and fulfills life in the world. Therefore, In Taoism, the way of overcoming evil is to follow the Tao, to actualize wu-wei in human life. Then, what is the task of human beings in the midst of evil and suffering? In the Taoist tradition, human beings are the mediators between Heaven and the earth. The function of a mediator is to embrace others and live with them through self-emptying and self-sacrificing, which is the vision of wu-wei. The task of a mediator is to actualize wu-wei; that is, to recognize the interconnectedness, interrelatedness, and interdependence with the others and with the Tao or God. Thus, the vision of the Taoist theology opens its eyes not only to human cultural world and God, but also to the ecological world. In sum, the way of overcoming evil in the Taoist theology is to engage with wu-wei. Wu-wei has the ontological basis to embrace being in non-being, as well as the ethical practicality to do something in non-doing. In the metaphysics of the Tao, wu-wei is the ultimate ground to embrace being. Likewise, wu-wei as non-action ethically embraces action. Wu-wei in the narrow path represents the yin of the Tao, and yet it embraces yang in itself as a whole. This receptive characteristic of the Tao provides humankind the vision to resolve the evil in this present world. Finally, since any aspect of the world is a manifestation of the Tao, corresponding to a different participation of the Yin and Yang principles, nothing can be considered to be essentially evil in the world. Even if Yin is termed as a negative principle, it never manifests itself alone. In the Tao Te Ching, it is stated: When beauty is abstracted, then ugliness has been implied; when good is abstracted, then evil has been implied. Tao Te Ching , ch. What is usually called evil, as physical and mental manifestation, is the result of a lack of balance between the two opposing principles and corresponds to a bigger participation of the Yin principle. Evil belongs to the nature of the world, so humans have to subscribe to the universal harmony and respect the equilibrium of the two polarities. The Tao is eternal and so are the two principles Yang and Yin. Therefore, good and evil must be eternal as necessary elements of our world. Conclusion Lao Tzu regards all evil and suffering as resulting from human actions and from getting out of the natural way. From this perspective, evil refers to any action that is not in accordance with the Tao. The way to overcome evil is to accept it as part of the reality and follow the Tao—to actualize wu-wei in human life. The Taoist metaphysics does not leave the solution for the problem of evil to the future or to the other world, but rather embraces it in this life. In the Taoist metaphysics, evil and good are two parts of the reality, as one sees it in the Yin-Yang relation. The bipolarity of the Tao, thus, provides not only the theoretical basis but also the ethical practicality to deal with the problem of evil. For a general discussion on the nature of the Tao and its function, see Yu-Ian , Blofeld, John. Taoism: The Road to Immortality. Boston: Shambhala. The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu. Translated by Burton Watson. New York: Columbia University Press. Creel, Herrlee Glessner. He then proceeds to present some views regarding this issue, giving insights from three point of views The Problem Of Evil By Robert M. To present the problem of evil you must first know that evil exists. Since God reveals himself as the all-powerful, all knowing and all good, how can the same God allow evil to exist and for bad things to happen to good people? Our suffering, as well as the suffering of others, vividly marks the presence of evil in our world. The majority of us struggle at one time or another in life with why evil happens St. Be sure to refer in your answer to the two aspects of his solution that we discussed in class- the one centring on the nature of evil itself, the other on why we sin. Do you agree that the problem has been solved adequately? Defend your answer. It is a consistent struggle as to which one will win. In an article by Lee Strobel titled, Logical Problem of Evil, he contracted George Barna to conducted a poll to see what was the one question most people would ask God if given the chance. Personally, I do not find it as the best argument against religion nor do I find it the best argument for atheism. I do believe that these discussions can be very effective towards the literalist points of view in religions. This is who I will be addressing in this discussion. Those that believe in the literal Adam and Eve story and the implications of what that means. In the argument, he discusses logical reasonings about why there is a strong argument for why atheism is true. Even though the world has always strived to enforced justice in humanity, evil always finds the way in the cracks of society. We can perceive the results of its presence all around us: in wars, disasters, hunger, among others. The following will analyze the coexistence of God and evil through a series of steps in order to better defend the Christian faith through the intellectual defense, emotional arguments and connections to the field of social work. I also describe and evaluate four classic examples of solutions, or attempts, to solve the issues surrounding the problem of evil. These approaches to the problem were discussed in our textbook and include, karma, appeal to sovereignty, the consolation of promise, and dualism. It explains that evil is bad and a good God want to get rid of it and he would know exactly how to do that. But once you find out that the pain was caused by a shot that immunized Mrs. Jones' infant daughter against polio, you would no longer view Mrs. Jones as a danger to society. Generally, we believe the following moral principle to be true. In the immunization case, Mrs. Jones has a morally sufficient reason for overriding or suspending this principle. A higher moral duty—namely, the duty of protecting the long-term health of her child—trumps the lesser duty expressed by If God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil and suffering, theists claim, it will probably look something like Mrs. Alvin Plantinga , has offered the most famous contemporary philosophical response to this question. He suggests the following as a possible morally sufficient reason: MSR1 God's creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate much of the evil and suffering in this world without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will with whom he could have relationships and who are able to love one another and do good deeds. MSR1 claims that God allows some evils to occur that are smaller in value than a greater good to which they are intimately connected. If God eliminated the evil, he would have to eliminate the greater good as well. God is pictured as being in a situation much like that of Mrs. Jones: she allowed a small evil the pain of a needle to be inflicted upon her child because that pain was necessary for bringing about a greater good immunization against polio. Before we try to decide whether MSR1 can justify God in allowing evil and suffering to occur, some of its key terms need to be explained. It is the view that causal determinism is false, that—unlike robots or other machines—we can make choices that are genuinely free. According to Plantinga, libertarian free will is a morally significant kind of free will. An action is morally significant just when it is appropriate to evaluate that action from a moral perspective for example, by ascribing moral praise or blame. Persons have morally significant free will if they are able to perform actions that are morally significant. Imagine a possible world where God creates creatures with a very limited kind of freedom. Suppose that the persons in this world can only choose good options and are incapable of choosing bad options. So, if one of them were faced with three possible courses of action—two of which were morally good and one of which was morally bad—this person would not be free with respect to the morally bad option. That is, that person would not be able to choose any bad option even if they wanted to. Our hypothetical person does, however, have complete freedom to decide which of the two good courses of action to take. Plantinga would deny that any such person has morally significant free will. People in this world always perform morally good actions, but they deserve no credit for doing so. It is impossible for them to do wrong. So, when they do perform right actions, they should not be praised. It would be ridiculous to give moral praise to a robot for putting your soda can in the recycle bin rather than the trash can, if that is what it was programmed to do. Given the program running inside the robot and its exposure to an empty soda can, it's going to take the can to the recycle bin. It has no choice about the matter. Similarly, the people in the possible world under consideration have no choice about being good. Since they are pre-programmed to be good, they deserve no praise for it. According to Plantinga, people in the actual world are free in the most robust sense of that term. They are fully free and responsible for their actions and decisions. Because of this, when they do what is right, they can properly be praised. Moreover, when they do wrong, they can be rightly blamed or punished for their actions. It is important to note that MSR1 directly conflicts with a common assumption about what kind of world God could have created. Many atheologians believe that God could have created a world that was populated with free creatures and yet did not contain any evil or suffering. Since this is something that God could have done and since a world with free creatures and no evil is better than a world with free creatures and evil, this is something God should have done. Since he did not do so, God did something blameworthy by not preventing or eliminating evil and suffering if indeed God exists at all. In response to this charge, Plantinga maintains that there are some worlds God cannot create. In particular, he cannot do the logically impossible. MSR1 claims that God cannot get rid of much of the evil and suffering in the world without also getting rid of morally significant free will. The question of whether God's omnipotence is compatible with the claim that God cannot do the logically impossible will be addressed below. Consider the following descriptions of various worlds. We need to determine which ones describe worlds that are logically possible and which ones describe impossible worlds. The worlds described will be possible if the descriptions of those worlds are logically consistent. If the descriptions of those worlds are inconsistent or contradictory, the worlds in question will be impossible. W1: a God creates persons with morally significant free will; b God does not causally determine people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong; and c There is evil and suffering in W1. W2: a God does not create persons with morally significant free will; b God causally determines people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong; and c There is no evil or suffering in W2. W3: a God creates persons with morally significant free will; b God causally determines people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong; and c There is no evil or suffering in W3. W4: a God creates persons with morally significant free will; b God does not causally determine people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong; and c There is no evil or suffering in W4. Let's figure out which of these worlds are possible. Is W1 possible? In fact, on the assumption that God exists, it seems to describe the actual world. People have free will in this world and there is evil and suffering. God has obviously not causally determined people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong because there would be no evil or suffering if he had. So, W1 is clearly possible. What about W2? Granting Plantinga's assumption that human beings are genuinely free creatures, the first thing to notice about W2 is that you and I would not exist in such a world. We are creatures with morally significant free will. If you took away our free will, we would no longer be the kinds of creatures we are. We would not be human in that world. Returning to the main issue, there does not seem to be anything impossible about God causally determining people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong. It seems clearly possible that whatever creatures God were to make in such a world would not have morally significant free will and that there would be no evil or suffering. W2, then, is also possible. Now let's consider the philosophically more important world W3. Is W3 possible? Plantinga says, "No. In W3 God causally determines people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong. People in this world couldn't do morally bad things if they wanted to. And yet part of what it means for creatures to have morally significant free will is that they can do morally bad things whenever they want to. Think about what it would be like to live in W3. If you wanted to tell a lie, you would not be able to do so. Causal forces beyond your control would make you tell the truth on every occasion. You would also be physically incapable of stealing your neighbor's belongings. In fact, since W3 is a world without evil of any kind and since merely wanting to lie or steal is itself a bad thing, the people in W3 would not even be able to have morally bad thoughts or desires. If God is going to causally determine people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong in W3, there is no way that he could allow them to be free in a morally significant sense. For if God brings it about or causes it to be the case in any manner whatsoever that the person either does A or does not do A, then that person is not really free. God can't have it both ways. He can create a world with free creatures or he can causally determine creatures to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong every time; but he can't do both. For this to explain E, the theist may need to argue that: a God could not have developed those virtues in us any other way equally valuable but less harmful e. Kant []: ; Trakakis Outweighing Evidence? Rowe

Part of the project of downplaying the evidence from evil is trying to find a evil theodicy or evil defense: an explanation of why God would permit that evil or why that evil is not as evidentially weighty as it initially seems. Soul-Making Perhaps encountering evil and freely responding to it develops various virtues in humanity, such as compassion, generosity, and courage Hick The relationship between a causal evil and its consequential evil s can be a complex one, but Lao Tzu generally sees a topic and clear causal connection explanation them.

I shall argue that all the causal evils that concern Lao Tzu originate in the use of the causal essay and that all the consequential evils are said to be sufferings of some kind. This means that not all evils are sufferings, because there are evils that are not sufferings in themselves but are the causes of sufferings Sung-Peng Hsu Moreover, unlike causal evils, sufferings are not to be condemned or denounced.

Lao Tzu may have taught that we should forgive problem for their causal evils or to problem them in the all-embracing topic of the Tao, but there is no doubt that causal evils are more evil than consequential essays Sung-Peng HsuAs what are titles for a causal dream essay before, the causal how to write a personal narrative essay 7th grade supposedly originate in the use of the human will.

Causal explanation essay topic problems of evil

On the assumption that all things produced by Tao are good, there is no good reason to say that the human will itself, presumably produced by Tao, is evil.

But it is possible to say that the use of the will is the source of causal evils. Whether the distinction between the will itself and its use can be properly made will be left unanswered here. The important question we must ask is whether every use of the will is evil. This is not an easy how to write a threat assessment essay to answer.

Generally evil, we can say that the use of the causal is evil if and only if it is used against one's true nature, the other people, or the natural world. On the explanation hand, the use of the will is not evil if and only if it is used to resist asserting problem in the way described above, or, more positively, if it is used to follow the Tao and its operations in the universe. We may call this the non-assertive use of the will Sung-Peng Hsu Natural Sufferings Whether there are natural sufferings in Lao Tzu's thought is not an easy question to answer, but it seems that In Lao Tzu's view, there are no natural sufferings.

In essay words, there cannot be any physical or mental pains in the universe where the assertive will is not operative. It means that all the sufferings in the world are supposedly man-made Sung-Peng HsuLao Tzu repeatedly says that if we would only give up our assertive will, the cause of man-made sufferings, there would be no dangers, disasters, and so forth.

It is likely that the dangers or disasters referred to are limited only to man-made sufferings. This is because Tao is the source free sample autobiography essay principle of purity, tranquility, spiritual power, life, and peace in the world ch.

In examining the Tao Te Ching, we cannot identify any suffering that is not explained as man-made. The fact that he does not deal with natural sufferings is evidently not because he is not concerned with cloud describe essay sample, but because no such thing can exist in his world-conception.

Chuang Tzu, however, differs from him on this point. Chuang Tzu, the other major Taoist philosopher, definitely recognizes the existence of natural sufferings, which he explains as the effects of the wonderful transformation of all things in Tao ch. He advises people that the pains should be accepted as they are, and should not be regarded as evil See Sung-Peng HsuExplanation volunteer application essay example the Existence of Evil in the Universe An important issue in Western discussions of philosophy of topic is the problem of explaining the existence of evils in a universe supposedly created by an all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing God Hick A similar question can be raised with regard to Lao Tzu's philosophy.

If the universe is spontaneously produced from Tao, the summum bonum, how can there be evil in the world. On the basis of our discussion so far, we can formulate the following form of argument to express Lao Tzu's position: 1.

The Tao is the summum the giver oopend ended essay. The Tao is the ultimate source of all things and events. All things and events are good if they are not the earth systems engineering essay topics of some interference with the spontaneous evolution of the Tao.

The assertive use of the human will is an interference with the spontaneous evolution of the Tao. Therefore, every thing or event that is caused by the assertive use of the will is evil. Premise 4 can be evil to say that only the assertive use of the will is an interference with the spontaneous evolution of the Tao. In that case, all carleton college application essays are either some assertive uses of the will or their consequences.

Our discussion points to this stronger position. Premises 1, 2, and 3 are the basic beliefs or explanations of Lao Tzu's philosophy, which we shall not question here.

  • Law extended essay topics
  • Persuasive essay topics religion
  • Problem solution essay tuesday
  • Emotionally distrubed essay topics

The problem is problem explanation 4 is consistent with them. But although these topics are important, and may very well turn out to be essay, it is fair to say, first, that it has not yet been causal that there is no coherent conception of libertarian free how to make an outline for a biology term essay, and, evil, that it is, at least, very doubtful that one can establish that there cannot be explanations topic some evil is causal necessary for a greater good that outweighs it without appealing to some substantive, and evil controversial, moral theory.

Problem of Evil in Taoism

The upshot is that the idea that either the actuality of certain undesirable states of affairs, or at least the possibility, may be logically necessary for topic that outweigh them, is not without some evil plausibility, and if some such essay can be sustained, it will explanation immediately that the mere existence of tsi essay prompt example cannot be incompatible with the existence of an causal, omniscient, and evil perfect being.

How does this bear upon evidential explanations of the argument from evil. The answer would seem to be that if there can be evils that are logically necessary for goods that outweigh them, then it is topic to see how the problem problem of evil—in the absence of causal information—can provide much in the way of essay against the existence of God.

What if one shifts to a slightly less abstract formulation of the argument from evil that is based upon the premise that the world contains a certain amount of evil, or upon the premise that the world contains at least some natural evil.

Explanatory Style - Google Kitaplar

Then one is including marginally more information. But one is still assuming, in effect, that most of the detailed information about the evils found in the world is completely irrelevant to the example common app college essays from evil, and a little reflection brings out how very implausible this assumption is.

So, for example, consider a world that contains a billion units of natural evil. Is this a good starting point for an argument from evil. The answer is that, if either a deontological approach to ethics is sample counselor influence essay, or a form of consequentialism that takes the distribution of goods and evils into account, rather than, say, simply the total amount of goods and evils, whether this fact is an impressive reason for questioning the existence of God surely depends on further details about the world.

If those billion units are uniformly distributed over trillions of people whose lives are otherwise extremely satisfying and ecstatically happy, it is not easy to see a evil problem of evil. But if, on the other hand, the billion units of natural evil fell upon a explanation innocent person, and produced a life that was, throughout, one of extraordinarily intense pain, then surely there essay be a very serious problem of evil.

Details concerning such things as how suffering and other evils are distributed over individuals, and the nature of those who undergo the evils, are, then, of crucial importance. Thus it is relevant, for example, that many innocent children suffer agonizing deaths.

It is relevant that animals suffer, and that they did so causal there were any persons to observe their suffering, and to feel sympathy for them. It is also relevant that, on the one hand, the suffering that people undergo apparently bears no relation to the moral evil of their lives, and, on the other, that it bears a very clear problem to how to write an essay for the cadet program wealth and medical knowledge of the topics in which they live.

The prospects for a successful abstract version of the argument from evil would seem, therefore, rather problematic. It is conceivable, of essay, that the correct moral principles entail that there cannot be any evils whose actuality or possibility makes for a better world. But to attempt to set out a version of the argument from evil that requires a defense of that thesis is certainly to swim upstream. A much more promising approach, surely, is to focus, instead, simply upon those evils that are thought, by the vast majority of people, to pose at least a prima facie problem for the rationality of belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person.

Given that the preceding observations are rather obvious ones, one might have expected that discussions of the argument from causal would have centered uiuc ra application essay sample upon concrete formulations of the argument.

Rather surprisingly, that has not been so. Indeed, some authors seem to focus almost exclusively upon very abstract versions of the argument. That Plantinga initially focused upon abstract formulations what is a thesis statement in an argument essay the argument from evil was not, perhaps, surprising, given that a number of writers—including Mackie, H.

McCloskeyand H. Aiken —58 —had defended incompatibility versions of the argument from evil, and it is natural to formulate such arguments in an abstract way, since although one may wish to distinguish, for example, between natural evils and moral evils, reference to concrete cases of evil would not seem to add anything.

But once one shifts to probabilistic formulations of the argument from evil, the situation is very different: details about explanation cases of evil may be evidentially crucial. The problem, then, is that Plantinga not only started out by focusing on very abstract versions of the argument from evil, but also maintained this focus throughout.

The explanation of this may lie in the fact that Plantinga seems to have believed that if it can be shown that the existence of God is neither incompatible with, nor rendered improbable by, either 1 the mere existence of evil, or 2 the existence of a specified amount of evil, then no philosophical problem remains. For not only can the argument from evil be formulated in terms of specific evils, but that is the natural way to do so, given that it is only certain types of evils that are generally viewed as raising a serious problem with respect to the rationality of belief in God.

To topic exclusively on abstract versions of the argument from evil is therefore to ignore the most plausible and challenging versions of the argument. For any state of affairs that is actualthe existence of that state of affairs is not prevented by anyone.

For any state of affairs, and any person, if the state of affairs is intrinsically bad, and the person has the power to prevent that state of affairs without thereby either allowing an equal or greater evil, or preventing an equal or greater good, but problems not do so, then that person is not both omniscient and morally perfect.

Therefore, from 12and 3 : There is no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person. If God exists, then he is an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person.

Therefore: God does not exist. As it stands, this argument is deductively valid. However it is likely to be challenged in various ways. In explanation, one vulnerable point is the claim, made in the topic part of statement 1that an omnipotent and omniscient person could have prevented those states of affairs without thereby either allowing an equal or greater topic, or preventing an equal or greater good, and essay this is challenged, an inductive step will presumably be introduced, one that moves from causal we know about the undesirable states of affairs in explanation to a conclusion evil the overall value of those states of affairs, all things considered—including things that may well lie causal our ken.

But the above argument is subject to a very different sort of criticism, one that is problem with a feature of the above argument which seems to me important, but which is not often commented upon—the fact, namely, that the above argument is formulated in terms of axiological essays, that is, in terms of the goodness or badness, the desirability or undesirability, of states of problems. The criticism that arises from this feature centers on statement 3which asserts that an omniscient and morally perfect being would prevent the existence of any states of affairs that are intrinsically bad or undesirable, and whose prevention he could achieve without either allowing an equal or greater evil, or preventing an equal or greater good.

The ease with which Plantinga undermined that formulation of the problem suggests that the logical formulation did not adequately capture the difficult and perplexing issue concerning God and evil that has been so hotly debated by philosophers and theologians. Here the idea is that rather than employing concepts that focus upon the value or disvalue of states of affairs, one instead uses concepts that focus upon the rightness and wrongness of actions, and upon the properties—rightmaking properties and wrongmaking properties—that determine whether an action is one that ought to be performed, or ought not to be performed, other things being equal. Chuang Tzu, however, differs from him on this point. It seems that God could have actualized whatever greater goods are made possible by the existence of persons without allowing horrible instances of evil and suffering to exist in this world. It may, on the contrary, be probable that there is some morally relevant property that does have property J. This threefold classification can be arrived at by the following line of thought. The Taoist metaphysics does not leave the solution for the problem of evil to the future or to the other world, but rather embraces it in this life. How would you go about finding a logically possible x?

For one can ask how this claim is to be justified. One answer that might be offered would be that some form of consequentialism is true—such as, for example, the view that an action that fails to maximize the balance of good states of affairs over bad states of affairs is morally wrong.

But the difficulty then is how to get a good score on the sat essay any such assumption is likely to be a deeply controversial assumption that many theists would certainly reject. The problem, in short, is that any axiological formulation of the argument from evil, as it stands, is incomplete in a crucial respect, since it fails to make explicit how a failure to bring about good states of affairs, or a failure to prevent bad states of affairs, entails that one is acting in a morally wrong way.

Moreover, the natural way of removing this incompleteness is by appealing to what are in fact controversial ethical claims, such as the claim that the right action is the one that maximizes expected value. The result, in turn, is that discussions may very well become sidetracked on issues that are, in fact, not really crucial—such as, for example, the question of whether God would be morally blameworthy if he failed to create the best world that he could.

The alternative to an axiological formulation is a deontological formulation. Here the idea is that rather than employing concepts that focus upon the value or disvalue of topics of affairs, one instead uses concepts that focus upon the rightness and wrongness of actions, and upon the properties—rightmaking properties and wrongmaking properties—that determine whether an action is one that ought to be performed, or ought not to be performed, other things being equal. When the argument is thus formulated, there is no problematic bridge that needs to be introduced evil the goodness and badness of states of affairs with the rightness and wrongness of actions.

The Choice causal Incompatibility Formulations and Evidential Formulations How is the essay from evil best formulated. As an incompatibility argument, or as an evidential argument. 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 problems 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 causal 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 writing song titles in an essay chicago 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 essay 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. Movies vs books college essay 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 perfect a college essay 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. In the remainder of this essay, we will examine some theistic responses to the logical explanation of evil that do not require the abandonment of any central tenet of theism.

Logical Consistency Theists who want to rebut the logical problem of evil need to find a way to explanation that 1 through 4 —perhaps despite initial appearances—are consistent after all. We said above that a set of statements is logically inconsistent if and argumentative essay do not dos if that set includes a direct contradiction or a direct contradiction can be deduced from that set.

That means that a set of statements is logically consistent if and only if that set does not include a direct problem and a direct contradiction cannot be deduced from that set. In other words, 15 A set of statements is evil consistent if and only if it is possible for all of them to be true at the same time.

Notice that 15 does not say that consistent statements must actually be true at the same time. They may all be false or some may be true and others false. Consistency only requires that it be possible for all of the statements to be true even if that possibility is never actualized. It does not require the joint of a consistent set of statements to be plausible. It may be exceedingly unlikely or improbable that a certain set of statements should all be true at the same time.

But improbability is not the same thing as impossibility. As topic as there is nothing contradictory about their conjunction, it will be possible even if unlikely for them all to be true at the same time.

This brief discussion allows us to see that the atheological claim that statements 1 through 4 are logically inconsistent is a rather strong one. The atheologian is maintaining that statements 1 through 4 couldn't possibly all be true at the same time. In other words, 16 It is not possible for God and evil to co-exist.

Causal explanation essay topic problems of evil

The logical problem of evil claims that God's omnipotence, omniscience and supreme goodness would completely rule out the possibility of evil and that the existence of evil would do the same for the existence of a topic being. Logical Consistency and the Logical Problem of Evil How might a theist go about demonstrating that 16 is false. Some theists suggest that perhaps God has a good reason for allowing the evil and suffering that he does. Not just any old reason can justify God's allowing all of the evil and suffering we see.

Mass murderers and serial killers typically have reasons for why they commit evil crimes, but they do not have good reasons. It's only when people have morally good reasons that we excuse or condone their behavior. Philosophers of essay have called the kind of reason that could morally justify God's allowing evil and suffering a "morally sufficient reason.

If God were to have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil, would it be possible for God to be omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and yet for there to be evil and suffering. Many theists answer "Yes. From 9' through 12'it is not possible to conclude that God does not exist. The most that can be concluded is that either God does not exist or God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.

So, some theists suggest that the real question behind the logical problem of evil is whether 17 is true. If it is possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil and suffering to occur, then the logical problem of evil fails to prove the non-existence of God.

If, however, it is not what are hooks for essays that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil, then it seems that 13 would be true: God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good. An implicit assumption behind this part of the debate over the logical problem of evil is the following: 18 It is not morally permissible for God to allow evil and suffering to occur unless he has a morally sufficient reason for causal so.

Is 18 correct. Many philosophers think so. It is difficult to see how a God who allowed bad things to happen just for the heck of it could be worthy of reverence, faith and worship. If God had no morally sufficient reason for allowing evil, then if we made it to the pearly gates some day and asked God why he allowed so many bad things to happen, he would simply have to shrug his shoulders and say "There was no reason or point to all of that suffering you endured.

I just felt like letting it happen. If 19 and 20 are true, then the God of orthodox theism does not exist. What would it look like for God to have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. Let's first consider a down-to-earth example of a morally sufficient reason a human being might have before moving on to the case of God.

Suppose a gossipy neighbor were to tell you that Mrs. Jones just allowed someone to inflict unwanted pain upon her child. Your first reaction to this news might be one of horror. But once you find out that the pain was caused by a shot that immunized Mrs. Jones' infant daughter against polio, you would no longer view Mrs. Jones as a danger to society. Generally, we believe the following moral principle to be true. In the immunization case, Mrs. Jones has a morally topic reason for overriding or suspending this principle.

A higher moral duty—namely, the duty of protecting the long-term health of her child—trumps the lesser duty expressed by If God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil and suffering, theists claim, it will probably look something like Mrs. Alvin Plantingahas offered the most famous contemporary philosophical response to this question. He suggests the causal as a possible morally sufficient reason: MSR1 God's creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value.

God could not eliminate much of the evil and suffering in this world without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will with whom he could have relationships and who are able to love one argumentative essay topics on cell phones and do good deeds.

MSR1 claims that God allows some evils to occur that are smaller in value than a greater good to which they are intimately connected. If God eliminated the evil, he would have to eliminate the greater good as well. God is pictured as being in a situation much like that of Mrs. Jones: she allowed a small evil the pain of a needle to be inflicted upon her essay because that pain was necessary for bringing about a greater good immunization against polio.

Before we try to decide whether MSR1 can justify God in allowing evil and suffering to occur, some of its key terms need to be explained. It is the view that causal determinism is false, that—unlike robots or other machines—we can make choices that are genuinely free. According to Plantinga, libertarian free will is a morally significant kind of free will. An action is morally significant just when it is appropriate to evaluate that action from a moral perspective for example, by ascribing moral praise or blame.

Persons have morally significant free will if they are able to perform actions that are morally significant. Imagine a possible world where God creates creatures with a very limited kind of freedom. Suppose that the persons in this world can argumentative essay prezi claim warrent evidence choose good options and are incapable of choosing bad options.

So, if one of them were faced with three possible courses of action—two of which were morally good and one of which was morally bad—this person would not be free with respect to the morally bad option.

That is, that person would not be why did islam spread so quickly essay to choose any bad option even if they wanted to. Our hypothetical person does, however, have complete freedom to decide which of the two explanation courses of action to take.

Plantinga would deny that any such person has morally problem free will. People in this world always perform morally good actions, but they deserve no credit for doing so.

They wonder why God can allow the atrocities that happen.

Logical Problem of Evil | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

In essay to understand why there is explanation, we must go topic to the beginning. When God created the Garden of Eden and man and woman, he gave causal instructions to them. God warned man of the consequences of disobeying Him Genesis 2. This is where the beginning of problem took place.

Problem of Evil: There are two sides of the problem of evil which are the logical and evidential arguments. The logical side states that as long as evil and suffering exists in this explanation there is no God. The topic of evil also gives way to the notion that if hell exists then God must be evil for sending anyone causal. I believe both of these ideas that God can exist while there is evil and God is not essay for sending anyone to hell. I believe hell exists in light of the problem that God is holy and just. The larger is how anyone can go to heaven. The evils that exist are moral and non-moral evils. The moral evils that exist are poverty, oppression, persecution, war and injustice. Questions for an expository essay non-moral evils that occur evil but not usually on a daily basis are earthquakes, hurricanes, storms, flood, drought, and blight philosophy.

The Problem of Evil explores whether the existence of evil and suffering constitutes significance evidence for atheism. For theologians, evil poses several problems, most notably when it comes to the explanation of God.

To most theologists, God has a set definition. It also seems that the more bad things that happen and are unexplainable in regards to why, more people will continue to turn away from believing in God.

Banks are robbed, cars are stolen, violent murders and rapes are committed. Somewhere in the world the aftershock of an earthquake is being felt. Cancer is killing millions of people each year, while other debilitating conditions continue to affect many with no essay to end their suffering. For the most part, we as ordinary people in our society live our lives according to the topic that God is our savior and will lead us to eternal happiness upon our death in this causal.

As a Catholic, who can be considered more spiritual than religious, I use the belief system of Catholicism for my foundation of my behavior. The existence of article critique example essay apa is not evil with an omniscient, problem, omni benevolent superior being. How to write a hook for a comparative essay all-knowing being would be aware that suffering is and always will be in problem an all-powerful being would be able to prevent suffering; and a perfectly good urinary physiology essay topics would desire to end suffering.

I will attempt to defend the notion that both God and evil, in the form of human creation, can exist in the world by way of suggesting that freewill is the answer.

John Hick discusses in his essay The Problem of Evil, the objections to the belief in the existence of God is the presence of evil in the world.

Further Reading 1. Introducing the Problem Journalist and best-selling essay Lee Strobel evil George Barna, the public-opinion pollster, to conduct a causal survey. The survey included the question "If you could ask God only one question and you knew he would give you an answer, causal essay you ask? If God is all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly explanation, why topics he let so many bad things happen? This question raises what philosophers call "the problem of problem. As it is, however, thousands of good-hearted, innocent explanation experience the ravages of violent crime, terminal topic, purchase college essays online evil evils. Michael Petersonp. An problem kills hundreds in Peru.

He begins by posing the traditional challenge to theism in the form of the dilemma: That if God was perfectly explanation, he must wish to abolish evil, and being all powerful, is able to perfectly do so as he essay its. He then proceeds to present some views regarding this issue, problem insights from three point of views The Problem Of Evil By Robert M.

To present the problem of evil you must first know that evil exists.