Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

PHIL2010

This will probably take forever to post, but Hell, anything for the pursuit of education and learning.

The question:

The Problem of Evil argues against the existence of a particular kind of God. Carefully explain the arguement. Discuss at least one of the major replies to the arguement. (You should choose the reply you think is most likely to succeed in showing the arguement against God's existence is mistaken.) <-This is the part that threw me.* Your discussion should make clear how the reply is supposed to solve the problem, and also cover some of the objections that could be made to the reply. Overall, do you think the reply succeeds, or do you think the problem of evil remains a substantial obstacle to belief in a certain kind of god? Why?

My answer:

The problem of evil argues against the existence of a particular kind of God, an all-knowing, good, and powerful one. The problem is, if God is all of these three things, why does evil exist? (Or how?)

Some replies to said problem have been: freewill, that evil teaches, and that we pass on to a "greater good" so evil is allowed to run rampant here. The best reply to this arguement , albeit the most ambiguous one, is freewill.

This God gave us freewill, since He is good, so that we might live our own lives, and since we are forced to make choices, some being between good and evil, and others irrelevant to this arguement, we might pick evil over good, thus creating it.

God is all good, and as an act of kindness, perhaps He does not interfere. God is all knowing, so He will know of our decision. God is all powerful, but at thus point, that doesn't matter. It will come into play shortly.

SInce God is all good and all knowing, it is uncertain why He would let 'John' make a decision to kill someone. Being all powerful, it would be simple task to erase 'John' form being, but that wouldn't be good, so God cannot. He steps away, and 'John' murders someone. 'John' is evil, he exists, therefore, evil exists. But if 'Mary' doesn't know 'John' or his actions, then to 'Mary', evil doesn't exist, God is still good, and all the rest. A counter to this particular statement is that 'John' and evil exist, whether 'Mary' knows it or not, so God is not good, etc.

If that is true, then we have to find a new approach. God gave us freewill, an act of good, and 'John' chooses to kill someone. God created all things, evil included, maybe as an indirect result, who knows, but its still here, 'John' proved it. Since God is good, and we have freewill, He might say that "since I have given this to them, they must endure their consequences." Therefore, 'John' kills and everybody moves on. Now, even if God steps back from creation, He is still responsible for creating 'John', who commits evil. And the counter says God is responsible for 'John's' misdeed, thereby making God bad.

But this could be argued that God is not responsible because it was 'John's' freewill and not God's, making God good.

Since there is a discrepency, another approach must be made. God gave us freewill, and being all knowing He knows which choices 'John' will make, seemingly creating predestination, which is not freewill. Though, that could be disputed that since 'John' doesn't know what to pick until he does, whether or not to kill, 'John' exerts freewill.

A bigger counter to this whole freewill thing is that God, being all powerful, would eliminate all evil, killing 'John' and all his fellow evils, and their choices, or to be nicer, God simply makes it so that 'John's' decisions are always good. An arguement ensues, saying if all of 'John's' (poor 'John') decisions are good, then it was by God's will, not 'John'. Of course, a counter to this is taht 'John's' choices are always between good and good, to explain, whether to help an old lady across the street or to give his wallet to the homeless man. So, here God has done away with all evil, fulfilling His duty and keeping His "big three" titles. Unless, of course, a nun sees 'John' helping the old woman and helping the homeless bum, and the nun says 'John' is evil. But that is the nun's thinking, not God's. God says "'John' is only Human, and cannot do both at once."

In order to make the best argument that God is all good, knowing and powerful, freewill should be coupled with the arguement of necessary evil, saying evil is needed to teach and instruct.

Now, the obvious argument to that is the starving man in the desert who dies, but how can you know that God was learnin' him a lesson by putting him there? Unless you were with the starving man when he died, you can't know whether he learned a lesson or not. And since you can't, you cannot pursue that part of the arguement, making anything you say in that direction useless.

So, in conclusion, God remains the "big three", as we were given freewill to make choices, and then learn from them. 'John' kills, gets caught, is executed in the name of justice, which is good, and 'John' learns his lesson. If 'John' is not caught, his conscience eats away at him forever, and he learns his lesson. If 'John' feels no guilt and is not caught, then God will judge him and teach him in good God-like fashion.

So saying, evil exists, but God has reasons, and He's still the good guy, with his super powers and large brain.

What's everyone think? Good? Bad? Needs work? You know how to contact me, if you need too. Go home.

Email: poisonpikachu@hotmail.com