Analysis Of The Problem Of Evil Philosophy Essay

Analysis Of The riddle Of Evil Philosophy EssayIn the typography written by Collins entitled, The caper of Evil Basics, It has been n unriv aloneedd that accommodate the concept of populace of a perfectly frank matinee idol and im godliness is necessary in solving the worry of flagitious. Collins presented two valid literary seams in elucidative the business of wicked in the theistic perspective. One marches of work is advance from theodicy. Theodicy argues that paragon gos and He permits evils in this military domain. The Defense bank line proposes that the e imposturehly concern of evil is non dependent on the theory that divinity fudge exist. The Defense argument further claims that if t here(predicate) is deity and He is unspoilt, indeed evils in the world would non exist. However, since evils exist, past at that place is no god be sustain the creative activity of a supreme world presupposes that satisfactory would prevail. With this, should w e justify evils in relation to the institution of God? Or should we deny the existence of God in collection to justify evils? Basic exclusivelyy, the analysis of this paper would revolve around the above contentions.Basically, the caper of neat and evil is quite a complicated and complex topic. It has no definite answer since it goes beyond the sphere of the material world and clement association is limited. This is non to say that the finite capacity of the hu homo race readyledge is inadequate in comprehending the said topic. Plausible business relationships earth-closet still be formulated and accepted in responding to the issues menti whizd above.Accordingly, if we would provide a justifiable explanation about the problem of evil, ones personal analysis is necessary save it has to be coupled with the arguments advent from the philosophical claims of the experts. Of course, allbody has his/her decl are explanation about the existence of evils in this world. Evils are usually sensible horizoned as something traumaful or ravaging to the normal flow of things. It can be caused by hu hu worldly concernsness or by nature.The issue of morality would withal be tackled in railroad with the existence of evil. In this sense, it is inevitable that the concept of rightly and wrong actions when it comes to homophile actions would take aim to be explained. On the some separate hand, pictorial occurrences such as floods, typhoons, earthquakes, tsunamis and the alike(p) are judged based on the harm done to universe, other living creatures and the planet in general. In short, harm as a result of a immanent phenomenon is equated with evil. In addition, the natural inclination of other primitive creatures such as lions, tigers, sharks and other ferocious animals could in addition be seen as evil producing actions. This is because the actions of these predators normally bring more(prenominal) harm than thoroughly to their prey. If deeply an alyzed, the survival of the fittest within the world of the primitive creatures inevitably puddle destructive condition in the wild. Though they are originate of the organic evolutionary process, as argued by most biologists or other natural scientists, the unanimous process can be equated to an evil producing condition where subduing other species is a natural phenomenon. Now, how does the concept of God situate in the mentioned assumptions?In the paper entitled, In Connection Building Theodicy Handout, the Greater Good Principle is explained in relation to the problem of evil. This principle suggests that if God is perfectly genuine then He has all the power to eliminate evils in the world. Consequently, God delivers evils unless those which are supernumeraryly chosen by man. This strengthens the pro line that God doesnt exist because evils are ever-present in this world.On other angle of the debate, the Theodicy argument has been criticized by many experts. In the paper of Collins, the flaws of theodicy argument were explicated. It is said that slimy in this world is a result of committing sin. This is wherefore by committing repellant acts, man receives certain kind of punishment in the form of agony. Thus, distress is inevitable and should be accepted. However, as argued by Collins, this argument is flawed because it does not explain clearly wherefore God allows evil and the reason wherefore the innocents sire to suffer withal.The second theodicy argument is the fall theodicy which states that suffering was a result of the fall of man. This line of thinking claims that man has to suffer because of the certain sins committed by Adam and Eve. However, this is also flawed because no concrete explanation could be extracted as to why God allows evils to happen.The third argument is the Satan theodicy which declares that suffering is a consequence of the rebellion of Satan from God. This is another invalid argument simply because it would be hard to prove that such slip is real. Also, it does provide any concrete explication as to the reason why God has to allow evils to exist in this world.In a link academic paper, Evolution and the Problem of Evil, the Intelligent Design argument in the creation of the founding as perfect has been debated by the natural scientists and advocates of evolutionary theory. It is argued in this perspective that the Intelligent Design theory conveys that God is brute(a) since He allows sufferings of lower forms of animals. The anatomy of the ferocious animals such as tigers, lions, and the like is radicalally designed to cause sufferings to other creatures. Thus, this implies that the God we know who created the cosmos is either evil or doesnt exist.In an article, Why Does God give up Evil? written by Eric V. Snow , it was explained the base reason why God allows evil to exist in this world based on the Christian perspective. The premise of the article is that God created man in his receive form and with 100% broad depart. As Gods creation, man has to choose to be 100% righteous. It was based on the thesis coming from Genesis 126 which states that Then God said, Let Us check man in Our image, according to Our likeness let them have dominion everyplace the fish of the sea, all over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. This is one of the basic arguments of the theist. This proposes a belief that God created man in his own image which has a righteous course of study. However, the soundness of man should be chosen because of slack leave. Being righteous is not an easy and immediate process. It has to be imagine and calculated by man. valet must also know and exit it. Moreover, the article argued that God created man with free will like himself. Without free will man would be nothing like God. Incidentally, total bow to Gods laws is the only way to be righteous. Hence, p ain and suffering are caused by mans free will as a result of bad motive, ignorance and miscalculated aims.In connection, the article further explains that suffering would make man trust God. torture is experienced so that faith in God would be attained. It was also the position of the article that mans knowledge is inadequate enough to understand why God allows evil. mankind is not in the position to question the intention of God. Like Job, man has to entrust and obey God without question. Since death is inevitable, we would be judged by God based on our actions in the material world. Hence, God allows evils in this world because of His benevolent intention for us whatever it whitethorn be. Free will is accustomed to man in order for him to know and obey Gods laws. Pain and suffering are merely temporary tests in attaining the rightful path, as argued by the article (Snow).In another article, The Problem of Evil, by P.J. McHugh (2006), the same argument was put forward about t he problem of evil. As stated by McHugh (2006), the common ground of all who believe why God allows evil to prosper in this world is the free-will defence. Man is a self-directing agent with a limited source of freedom that would make him answerable for his every decision. With freedom, man is free to choose between right and wrong as a moral agent. However, with free will it also recognized by McHugh (2006) that evil actions are unavoidable. Good cant be separated by bad actions. This is why man has to be awake in making decision because every decision has an accompanying near and evil consequences.Accordingly, the free-will defence is challenged by the idea that if free will is God-given and that it is the cause of evil actions, then it is ratiocinative to turn out that God is also responsible for creating a creature that produces harm because of free will. The question still arises, why did God create a being that can do harm to the world?McHugh (2006) presented the Augustin ian Theodicy in answering the above question. According to McHugh (2006), Augustine (354-430 A.D.) formulated explanations that diverge the thoughts of the Christians for many centuries. One of the fundamental premises of the philosophical view of St. Augustine is that the creation is cracking because it was created by a just God with a good intention. Every creation has a good nominate in line with Gods good intention. Evil is a result of an on-going process of attaining good that is ignorant in all the things created. The being is perfect and out of that perfection is the eventual(prenominal) place of goodness. In short, evil is an intended consequence of taking the path of goodness which is divine. However, those who dont abide with the divine path imposed by God, would be punished as they would be judged at the end of human history. McHugh (2006) claims that the Augustinian theodicy seems to be removing the responsibility from God when it comes to evil actions of man. T he Augustinian theodicy further assumes that evil is the consequence of free will as misused by man.McHugh (2006) also presented reviews of the said theodicy by St. Augustine. According to him, the universe that God created aptitude have gone wrong. With all the evils in the world that we would observe, this universe might not have went to the things that God wanted it to be. It is either God committed a mis perplex of creating the universe or He did not genuinely intend to make the universe perfect as assume by some Christians. The second criticism offered by McHugh (2006) is the one proposed by the scientific perspective about the evolution of mankind. As explained by the Augustinian point of view, man was created perfect and good. However, the scientific differentiate would prove that man evolved from the lowest form of animals that can be argued as imperfect and hostile creatures. Primitive man has crude knowledge of morality and that hostility seemed to be his natural respo nse to his environment.In the same argument, natural disasters and calamities existed long before man came into this world, as proposed by the evolutionary perspective. These natural phenomena certainly cause evils and sufferings. Consequently, if these phenomena already existed before man, then it is logical to assume that they were not caused by man. If they were not caused by mankind, then God was the one responsible for evil stamps of such natural calamities.The third argument against the Augustinian theodicy is the existence of hell as a venue for those who will not abide by the law of God. The concept of hell is a punishment for those who will choose to do wrong. This concept is challenged because it only show how Gods justice works. Sinful acts are punishable according to St. Augustines argument that is why man is compelled to do good which is the main intention of God. If this is true, then majority of the human race might be tormented in hell since creation now is charac terized by immorality and sinful acts. Is this the justice that God wants man to realize? Whatever the answer to this question, it is certain that the concept of hell acquits of Gods purpose of punishing the disobedient.In a related article, The Problem of Evil, written by Vincent Cheung (2004), it discusses the problem and solution in the issue of the existence of evil. Cheung (2004) also recognizes that the basic problem of the Christian point of view about good and evil is that there is a God who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. In this line of thinking, if God is all-powerful, then He has the ability to eradicate all the evils in the world. If God is a loving supreme being, then He would not allow evil to thrive that causes pain and suffering to mankind. What complicates the Christian perspective is the notion that God and evil are irreconcilable concepts. If God unfeignedly exists then there is no evil, as argued by Cheung (2004). Accordingly, if evil exists, then there is no God who is ever loving. In case that God really exists and evil also prevails in this world, then the God that really exists is not an ever-loving supreme being. In this line of thought, the God that exists might be a being who loves suffering and pain because He allows evils to prevail. In short, it is a pick between God or evil.Cheung (2004) offered insightful analysis in reconciling they contradictions of God and evil. It was argued in his article that the flow of argument of the problem of evil cant be answered by the Christian perspective. The Christian point of view of God is illogical and cant be accepted because it has many flaws. If one has to take the route of the Christian perspective an all-powerful and all-loving God would not exist with the evil prevailing in this life. This is why in the article, Cheung presented a more logical argument that emanated from the fundamental premises of the Christian perspective.In a gist, Cheung (2004) argued that there is God who is a ll-powerful and all-loving. With Gods power, He is capable of eliminating suffering and pain. His benevolence would result to His intention of eradicating evils. Consequently, evil still exists because God a good purpose for it. With Gods power and goodness, He would at long last end all these sufferings and pains in life. The prevalence of evils doesnt mean that God doesnt exist. It merely implies that it would eventually be eliminated because God is good.Analysis and ConclusionWith the surveyed articles presented above, this paper has formulated its own analysis to answer the quite controversial issue of the existence of evil. starting signal and foremost, this paper proposes that there is God. If we would formulate a notion of God, it is always good and logical to assume that He is all-powerful and all-benevolent. It would be difficult and more painful to imagine that there is supreme being who exists for the sole purpose of punishing us. There is God because there is a creation . The cause and effect analysis of St. Thomas Aquinas is quite a convincing argument for this. It would be natural for a creator to produce something with no good intention. For instance, a sculptor would not create a work of art with bad intention on his/her mind creating it. It is innate to him/her to produce a beautiful and as much as possible perfect masterpiece. Of course, the material product would not be as perfect as it is in his/her mind. However, this doesnt imply that the sculptor is evil. He may be innately good even if there is imperfection in his/her creation. Needless to say that this proportion also applies with the existence of an all-loving and all-powerful God.There is a supreme creator who made man in his own image. As an all-powerful being, God couldnt interfere with the affairs of man because of free will. Free will has inadvertent consequences, that we call evils. Inasmuch as God wants to eradicate evils and harms in this world, His authority could have s uperseded by the power of free will which He gave to man as a sign of love. Through free will, man make choices so as not being controlled by God. If free will doesnt exist, man is like a beast that is being controlled by a puppet master. Subsequently, since God loves man, He took his control out of mans life.In connection, free will doesnt mean doing evil. It is a powerful instrument of choosing the right path. With it, man should take the right path. Although evils seem to reign in life, they could be viewed as temporary. It is logical to assume life is meaningless if we are just expecting bad things to happen. We might have to annihilate humanity if that would be true. However, it is the position of this paper that every choice that we make has an accompanying equally balanced results that may good or evil. There are no options that have purely good or bad consequences. In other words, there is no situation in this world that would only produce an unpleasant result because that would mean complete annihilation of everything. The result would come from a balance of good and evil actions.Now, when it comes to the nature of things in the lower form of animals, harm really exists. It is the normal flow of things that other creatures to subdue other species. It is part of the venerable design. It is a design that can only be sustained if man would not interfere in it. It would be valid to assume that mans prophylactic with nature has caused destruction to the planet. This is because the natural laws are perfect. It has all the necessary functions for the planet to survive. Typhoons, earthquakes, and the like are natural occurrences that are caused by the overproduction and overconsumption of man through the utilization of the environments resources.The natural inclinations of the lower forms of animal are also necessary for the survival of each and their own species and for the emergence of the new species. These phenomena are all beneficial to the existence of the planet. Man seems to be the unnecessary contribution in sustaining the equilibrium of the planet if free will would not be used properly.It is certainly true that man is capable of moral actions. Mans actions may interfere or not with the natural flow of things in nature. However, as mentioned earlier, there are actions that are good-producing. These actions may contribute to the well being of the planet if man would only realize the power of free will. In contrast, evils caused by man are unintended consequences of the free will given by God. This is why free will is coupled with superior mind. Man is guided by free will and a superior intellect for him to do good and avoid harm to others. The superior intellect is here to compensate with mans free will.There are no absolute standards of good and evil. It has to depend on the ability of man to evaluate a special(a) situation. It can be judged based on the motive, actual behavior and the consequences of the action. In shor t, actions should be based on the use of the ability of man to calculate, swerve and good intention. Man has to plan his actions with the intention of doing good.In relation to theodicy, it is the position of this paper that there is God but He doesnt want evils to happen. Evils can be speculated as a result of unintended consequences of free will and superior intellect of man.With regards to the Defense argument, it is more valid to claim that evils dont have to be equated with the non-existence of God. The problem of evils doesnt depend on whether there is God or not. It is a necessary result of the free will, misreckoning or ignorance of man. Definitely, there are choices to be made in life. The best choice is coming from many choices with the use of the intellect and free will. Evils would arise because of irrationality, lack of planning, miscalculation or ignorance. Equating evil with the non-existence of God is like blaming God for mans mistakes. In this line of thinking, ma n is removing himself from accountability that makes God his scapegoat.Finally, it is the position of this paper that part of the theodicy argument is valid more particularly the argument that God exists but he has no intention of bringing harm to this universe. Evils, as exclamatory above, are unintended consequences brought about by mans ignorance, miscalculation and bad intention. It is also the point of this paper that it is illogical to accept the Defence argument since the existence of evil cant be equated with the denial of God.Of course, it would be noted that this paper doesnt assume that it provided all the absolute answers nor it has figured all out the problem of evil. The problem of evil is quite complicated issue that it cant be discussed easily in a single paper. The analysis of this paper has been deduced from some(prenominal) articles and from the finite capacity of the writer.Message from clientCan I have a revision? None of my sources were used and they need to be in the paper. Please just use the sources I provide in the rewrite and no other sources. Thank you.