Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

The Problem of Evil, conclusions - Coggle Diagram

- - - - said that it is an important part of being made in the image of God. humans have the option to choose to commit evil and s. by choosing to be good, humans can develop unto a freely chosen, mature relationship with God
      - argues evil had to exist in the world for us to appreciate goodness
      - in the afterlife, we can continue to grown into the likeness of God
  - - - believed that God created a perfect world which was full of variety and goodness. this variety meant that some thins willl have more capabilities than others
      - as angels were created with variety, some received less grace from God and were less able to worship Gpd. this meant that some angels fell into sin as a result of misusing their free will
      - defined evil as a 'private Boni' = absence of good. believed evil was not a substance or force
    - - chose to disobey God by misusing their free will. were tempted by a fallen angel
      - this act of discobedience corrupted the natural world and the human soul. as a result, natural and moral evil entered the world
    - - response to the problem of evil is a development of Augustine’s theodicy
        
        uses this defence to argue for the coexistence of God and evil, intended to respond to Mackie's logical problem of evil
        
        so P thinks we have to accept that our universe is better for having value despite its downsides
        
        P2. God cannot remove evil without removing free will (logically impossible)
        
        P3. life would be valueless without free will, so it is better to have free will despite the evil its misuse can lead to
        
        P1. evil is a result pf the misuse of free will
        
        this raises the question of why God gave us free will at all though. wouldn't it have been better for us to live in a perfectly good world yet not have free will? P answers that if God didn't give us free will, our universe would have no value. our lives would have been valueless. therefore, no matter how much negative value you think giving us free will could result in, value itself would not be possible without it.
        
        it is logically impossible fr God to remove evil without removing the greater good of free will. thus a perfect God would therfore allow evil
        
        moral evil results from human actions. some object that free will cannot explain natural evil, but Platinga explains that it is logically possible for natural evil to either result from
        
        the free will of Adam and Eve justifying God in allowing natural evil into the world as punishment
        
        the free will of demons and satan
- - - - there are good reasons for allowing evil to continue eg there may be a good outcome from the result of evil. pain and disease are necessary for the development of sympathy, courage and cures
      - good cannot exist without evil, without evil we wouldn't know what good is
      - W.P Alston argues that we cannot understand God because human perspective is limited. we can perceive only part of what may be the full picture, so we cannot argue that this counts either for or against God.
        
        Platinga offers a further argument - God chooses to limit himself eg his power in order to allow free will
- - - - by stating that evil serves as a purpose despite the fact it appears bad
      - may suggest god is not totally powerful or loving
- - - - D.Z Phillips
        
        argues that it is wrong to suggest that God planned evil as part go his initial creation - for him this suggests an evil God who was willing to let humans suffer so that free will is preserved
      - positives of theory
        
        is appealing because it provides comfort and purpose to those ho are suffering. allows us to recognise that evil and s allow us to develop as human beings
        
        idea of 'soul making' appeals to out past experience that suffering enables us to grown as human beings
        
        recognises free will as the means for which we can develop morally and spiritually
      - theodicy fails to recognise that some people suffer a lot more
        
        eg, innocent people killed in terrorist attacks or childhood cancer - do not always follow for a 'vale of soul-making'
        
        suffering can make people worse, rather than better or stronger. suffering doesn't always lead to spiritual maturity. suffering can lead to lack of faith, bitterness and resentment
    - - recognise the role of humanity and misuse of free will as the cause for a lot of evil and s which we see in the world today
      - relies on literal interpretation of the Genesis text
        
        doesn't appeal to twenty-first-century beliefs about the origin of human beings
      - understanding of evil as privation is inadequate
        
        examples of evil, such as suffering of innocent children, genocide or natural disasters, cannot be understood as merely lack of goodness
      - theodicy raises issues with God's omniscience
        
        If God knows everything, why did He not anticipate the misuse of free will?
      - theodicy undermines God's omnipotence
        
        eg if God was all powerful he would be able to remove damage caused by evil and suffering
      - positives of theory
        
        is successful in preserving God's onibenevolence
        
        G doesn't want evil in the world,wasn't part of his original creation
        
        use of biblical text to support his understand of the origin of evils appeals to Christian audience
  - - - scholars such as Hick and Swinburne argue that evil is necessary for us to develop and into a free relationship with God
      - belief that an omnibenevolent God would seek to remove evil and s relies on the assumption that it is always better yo have no evil than to have evil in the world
    - - evidential problem of e failed to recognise the uniqueness of G. we are finite beings with limited capacities
      - so it is difficult to understand how an Omni-God would repspond to evil and suffering within the world
      - logical verson of problem of e recognises that evil and s may exist for good purposes. if evil and s allow fro spiritual and moral devlopment, then evil becomes good and necessary
    - - Richard Swinburne argues omnipotence is misunderstood. God can only of what is logically possible. it is a logical contradiction for God to allow human freedom while also not allowing gor evil and suffering to occur
      - belief that an omnipotent God would be able to remove evil and suffering relies on the assumption that an all-powerful God can do everything
    - - human beings are finite with limited capacities. there may be a purpose and reason for evil and s which we still don't understand
      - theism is about faith. a belief in God is not based on the balance of evidence. God does not havbt to explain the existence of evil and suffering in his creation
      - some people may argue that there is a far greater amount of good than evil in the world. plentiful examples of goodness and beauty suggest that God may still exist