The problem of evil creates a philosophical threat
The problem of evil creates a philosophical threat to the system of argument as it means that the design of the world and the God are inconsistent (Budziszewski 39). There is the body of information that points out the design of the world and God they are inconsistent from the prevalence of evil within the world. The problem of evil does not base its premise on the notion that there is no evil in the world; moreover, it does not state that there is evil in the world. In addition, the problem of evil is not about equilibrium between evil and good in the world. The problem of evolve is fundamentally based on the question of the existence of a deity, describes as all knowing and good, has all the powers, yet at the same time, evil persists.
A caring and benevolent God is inconsistent with the evil that persists in this world. Hence, the problem of evil is associated with what seem to be a contradiction with the idea of God. God is the being described as an all-powerful and yet he does give room for evil to persist, this is a problem, one that needs to be reexamined, and it is the problem that underscores the idea of God, particularly in religions that are dominant in the West. Job is a prime story in the Bible that the problem of Evil and God came to play, and one is informed that God used evil to torture Job, passing it as a test of faith in God (Kushner 76). An answer that may posed to the problem can be provided in way that suggests that human beings are moral agents, and nor God, and they are the cause of evil. God is not responsible for what people describe as the moral evil, and from a perspective, He created a world where it is good that exists moral evil, than one where the moral evil does not evil.
However, throughout knowledge development, this particular answer has been attacked from every angle and has proven to be little in solving the problem due to the fact that defending the answer has in explaining how the perfect God would allow or even cause the existence of evil. An all knowing God who knows the future creating an agent of evil is absurd, and that when he created the agent of evil, he had already known that the agents will create evil in the future. This is has been the logical analysis of the problem of evil when explaining the proof of God.
However, the evidential problem of evil can be examined from the angle of suffering. This argument seeks to reconcile the existence of suffering with the presence of omnipotent, benevolent, and omniscient God, one that has been described as merciful and loving. Perhaps God has full knowledge of the suffering in the world, but cannot stop the suffering, and then this simply implies that the God that is described to be omnipotent yet he is not actually omnipotent. Alternatively, God can be able to prevent suffering and would be willing to discontinue the suffering in the world, but God does not know how to go about it, and this would simply imply that God is not omniscient then. Perhaps God has full knowledge of the suffering in the world, and he is able to put a stop to the suffering in the world, however, he does not wish to alleviate the pain of those suffering, yet this does not make God to be benevolent (Forde 56).
The problem of evil is the outcome of a mix of a number of ideas, and it is a problem with ideas and concepts. First, God is all-good, second, God is all knowing, and third, God is all-powerful. On the other hand, evil exists, both the natural and moral. Let this problem be considered in the form of a logical one
a should stand for an all good God
b is that God is all knowing
c God is all powerful
e evil exists
e1 natural evil exists
e2 moral evil exists
The Problem of Evil is equal to a + b + c + e1 or e2
If one gets rid of a, b or c or e, then the individual gets rid of the concept of God altogether, or attempt to reconcile a + b + c + e without any consistency. As such, a reconciliation of the four would imply the lack of the problem of evil.
There have been four fundamental outlooks to the problem, and they follow the following format. First, theodicy, this aspect explains the manner in which the traditional idea of God can be reconciled with the existence of evil. Second, transformation of evil, and this converts the notion of evil so that it cannot be evil. Third, process theology, a transformation of the idea of the God, and finally atheism, which affirms that there is no God, and hence the problem of evil does not exists, and that with the God.
The problem is the outcome from the obvious inconsistency in a number of aspects that relate with God. For this point to sink further, consider the following valid pattern of argument.
The first premise P>Q
The second premise –Q
Hence –P and this is a pattern in philosophy that is known as Modus Tollens, or to deny the consequent.
For instance, if fire the air, no air, then no fire
If this is brought closer to the problem of evil, then it can be built in the following format
The first premise, d (k, p, g) > n
The second premise –n
Then –n (k, p, g)
Meaning, -d (k, p, g) = -d (k, p, g) , or d (k, p), = d (p, g)
If there is a God (all knowing, all powerful all good) then this is equal to no evil
But there is evil, = not no evil, which is –n,
Hence, there is no God that is all knowing, all-powerful and all good) = -d (k, p, g).
Consider the argument against there being a deity in the format of
God is powerful ever
If Omnipotent God exists then there is no evil
God is good ever
but id benevolent God exists then there is no evil
Then if evil exists
Then there is no God
and this follows that God does not exists, God is not all powerful, certainly devoid of some power, God is not all knowing, and God is not all good, as he is the creator of evil, and lacks something that is good.
Budziszewski, Janusz. What we can’t not know: A guide. Ignatius Press, 2011.
Forde, Gerhard O. “On being a theologian of the cross.” Reflections on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation 1518 (1997).Kushner, Harold S. The book of Job: when bad things happened to a good person. Schocken, 2012.