Jones has a morally sufficient reason for overriding or suspending this principle. They reason as follows: The greatest evils in the world are those inflicted by man upon man.
As an incompatibility argument, or as an evidential argument. Necessary to promote the greater good Could God allow a tidal wave or earthquake to kill thousands of people because the disaster will give Christians an opportunity to minister to the victims and as a result many come to faith in Christ.
Our hypothetical person does, however, have complete freedom to decide which of the two good courses of action to take. It may be exceedingly unlikely or improbable that a certain set of statements should all be true at the same time. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
This objection, however, is open to the following reply. That certainly runs contrary to central doctrines of theism. The second, which can be labeled the indirect inductive approach, argues instead that theism can be shown to be unlikely to be true by establishing that there is some alternative hypothesis—other than the mere negation of theism—that is logically incompatible with theism, and more probable than theism.
The intuitive idea, then, is that if one has an action that, given only its known rightmaking and wrongmaking properties, is an action that it would be morally wrong to perform, then it is more likely than not it is also an action that it would be morally wrong to perform, given the totality of its morally significant properties, both known and unknown.
HI neither the nature nor the condition of sentient beings on earth is the result of benevolent or malevolent actions performed by nonhuman persons.
How would my free will be compromised if tomorrow God completely eliminated cancer from the face of the Earth. Theodicy and the Bible The biblical account of the justification of evil and suffering in the presence of God has both similarities and contrasts in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.
That is, that person would not be able to choose any bad option even if they wanted to. God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.
If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, that being is not morally perfect. God is in control, but He is not controlling. Although Plantinga claimed that his Free Will Defense offered merely possible and not necessarily actual reasons God might have for allowing evil and suffering, it may be difficult for other theists to embrace his defense if it runs contrary to what theism says is actually the case in heaven.
These statements are logically inconsistent or contradictory. If there is any blame that needs to go around, it may be that some of it should go to Mackie and other atheologians for claiming that the problem of evil was a problem of inconsistency.
It does not require the joint of a consistent set of statements to be plausible. But evil of this sort is the best hope, I think, and maybe the only effective means, for bringing men to such a state. Philosophers of religion have called the kind of reason that could morally justify God's allowing evil and suffering a "morally sufficient reason.
If God eliminated the evil, he would have to eliminate the greater good as well. The atheist philosopher J. Madden, Edward and Peter Hare. A world full of suffering, trials and temptations is more conducive to the process of soul-making than a world full of constant pleasure and the complete absence of pain.
Any action whose wrongmaking properties outweigh its rightmaking properties is morally wrong.
The naturalist/atheist is also being inconsistent when he uses the problem of evil as an argument against the existence of God. But few, if any, recognize. As keenly-felt as the problem of evil may be, however, it doesn't represent a strong intellectual or logical obstacle to God's existence.
Mackie was wrong: the existence of God and the existence of evil aren't mutually exclusive. The Problem of Evil. The Problem of Evil is not a single problem, but rather a family of arguments for the non-existence of tsfutbol.com its least ambitious form, the argument cites the evil and suffering we find in the world as compelling evidence that the world is not under the control of an omnipotent Deity, while allowing that the evidence is not decisive.
The problem of evil, then, must be recast as the problem of unjustified evil. It is clear, for the reasons described above, that not all evil is unjustified. Some evil is brought into the world not by God but by man, and it is better that free agents and some evil exist than that no free agents and no evil exist.
When the skeptic challenges belief in God on the basis of the logical problem of evil, he is suggesting that it is irrational or logically impossible to believe in the existence of both a good and all powerful God and in the reality of evil and suffering.
This problem has brought up the issue of God’s existence in religious philosophical discussions.
For centuries, many have tried to dismiss the existence of God on the basis of the existence of evil. Let’s consider where God has been placed in people’s lives throughout our history.Problem with evil existence of god