Explain The Problem Of Evil Essay

There are also many discussions of evil and associated problems in other philosophical fields, such as secular ethics, The experiential problem is the difficulty in believing in a concept of a loving God when confronted by suffering or evil in the real world, such as from epidemics, or wars, or murder, or rape or terror attacks wherein innocent children, women, men or a loved one becomes a victim.This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid: If its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity.Besides philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is also important to the field of theology and ethics.

There are also many discussions of evil and associated problems in other philosophical fields, such as secular ethics, The experiential problem is the difficulty in believing in a concept of a loving God when confronted by suffering or evil in the real world, such as from epidemics, or wars, or murder, or rape or terror attacks wherein innocent children, women, men or a loved one becomes a victim.This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid: If its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity.Besides philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is also important to the field of theology and ethics.

Tags: What Is A Dissertation AbstractOnline Math Homework SolverCelta AssignmentEasy Self Introduction EssayWind Energy Essay PapersEssay Requirements For University Of TexasEssay Topics For Frankenstein

Both absolute versions and relative versions of the evidential problems of evil are presented below. Rowe: The second version of the problem of evil applied to animals, and avoidable suffering experienced by them, is one caused by some human beings, such as from animal cruelty or when they are shot or slaughtered.

This version of the problem of evil has been used by scholars including John Hick to counter the responses and defenses to the problem of evil such as suffering being a means to perfect the morals and greater good because animals are innocent, helpless, amoral but sentient victims.

Richard Swinburne maintains that it does not make sense to assume there are greater goods that justify the evil's presence in the world unless we know what they are—without knowledge of what the greater goods could be, one cannot have a successful theodicy.

Thus, some authors see arguments appealing to demons or the fall of man as indeed logically possible, but not very plausible given our knowledge about the world, and so see those arguments as providing defences but not good theodicies.

People with free will "decide to cause suffering and act in other evil ways", states Boyd, and it is they who make that choice, not God.

Critics of the free will response have questioned whether it accounts for the degree of evil seen in this world.This is called skeptical theism because the argument aims to encourage self-skepticism, either by trying to rationalize God's possible hidden motives, or by trying to explain it as a limitation of human ability to know.Most scholars criticize the skeptical theism defense as "devaluing the suffering" and not addressing the premise that God is all-benevolent and should be able to stop all suffering and evil, rather than play a balancing act.It need not even be true, since a false though coherent explanation would be sufficient to show logical compatibility.on the other hand, is more ambitious, since it attempts to provide a plausible justification—a morally or philosophically sufficient reason—for the existence of evil and thereby rebut the "evidential" argument from evil.Some solutions propose that omnipotence does not require the ability to actualize the logically impossible."Greater good" responses to the problem make use of this insight by arguing for the existence of goods of great value which God cannot actualize without also permitting evil, and thus that there are evils he cannot be expected to prevent despite being omnipotent.To show that the first premise is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on it, such as this modern example: Both of these arguments are understood to be presenting two forms of the 'logical' problem of evil.They attempt to show that the assumed propositions lead to a logical contradiction and therefore cannot all be correct.An argument from evil claims that because evil exists, either God does not exist or does not have all three of those properties.Attempts to show the contrary have traditionally been discussed under the heading of theodicy.