The Problem of Evil Essay -- essays research papers

Is there any(prenominal) satisfactory way of reconciling the existence of an omnipotent and all-loving theology with the existence of inseparable perversive (i.e. evil not due to the misuse of humanity free will)? One of the central engages of the Judaeo-Christian tradition is the existence of an omnipotent and all-loving God. Against this is the honoring that people and animals suffer evil. By common sense, we would infer from this observation that God, as conceived in this tradition, does not exist - for, if He did, He would prevent the evil. This proof is called the Problem of Evil by those who profess nonpareil of the religions in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and their attempts to solve the paradox have given rise to a labyrinth of sophistry.Put briefly, the termination most comm sole(prenominal) espoused to the Problem of Evil is* Some suffering is caused by some others misuse of their own free-will (as in murder).* God does not intervene to deflect people freel y choosing evil becauseo people can be virtuous only if they freely choose between good and evilo having virtuous people in the world is a great good than eradicating evilo therefore God must set aside people to be freeo therefore evil inflicted by other people is the price that God demands that we pay to enable or so people to be virtuous. * Some suffering is caused by natural phenomena (as in earthquakes). Such occurrences enable people to be virtuous througho heroics, such as rescuing those in dangero strong religious belief in God, as it is harder to believe in God in the midst of griefo humility, as people realise they are ineffective against the whim of God. * Again, God does not intervene because he is using the natural disasters to engender virtue. I shall examine a number of such arguments, except first it is useful to clarify the nature of such debate.The nature of theological debateOne difficulty that arises in writing about this font is that the traditional view of God is ridiculous - as Humes Philo says, it is fixed only by the utmost licence of fancy and hypothesis, and the arguments put in advance for it are transparently fallacious. In order to proceed with the debate at all, one must feign a deficit in the lotion of ones powers of reason, for if one relied exclusively on reason for deciding what to believe, then one would dismiss religion out of hand. It is well known that people implement their... ...answers here. First, although the discharge of openhearted deeds is a good thing, it is not such a great thing that it is worth inflicting war, pestilence, and old age on mankind. Second, there are ample opportunities for people to do great plant life that do not involve other peoples suffering. For instance, they could build concert halls, or run marathons, or make scientific discoverie, or write novels. The claim that great human achievements can be secured only through other peoples misery is an expression of pure evil, and not an argument for a benevolent God.ConclusionThe existence of evil (natural or otherwise) in the world cannot by chance be reconciled with the existence of an omnipotent and all-loving God. If such a God existed, He would prevent the occurrence of such evil. This is therefore a authorised proof of atheism, in the sense of denying the existence of God as He is conceived in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. It must be admitted, though, that this conception of God is a sharply-delineated and simple one, whereas many people nowadays have a soft-focus God. It is harder work for the infidel to refute the soft-focus God, although it can still be done.