Problem of Evil

The problem of evil is the challenge of reconciling evil and suffering in the world with belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God. These arguments assume that a being like a possible God would agree with human views and eliminate evil as people understand it. Although not all theologians agree, it indicates that God is a personal being; that God interacts, or at least has interacted with the world at some point, and is willing to continue doing so. People can recognise and agree on evil as something rendered intelligibly and discussed.

Experience or theory may discuss the problems. It’s difficult to believe in a loving God when faced with evil and suffering in the actual world, such as an epidemic, war, murder, or a natural disaster that takes the lives of the innocent. There are two types of evil problems studied by religious scholars: the logical and the evidential.

The Logical Problem of Evil

It exposes theistic logical inconsistency claims and among them are omnipotent, God is all-wise, and God is good, and evil exists. An omniscient God would know about all evils, an omnipotent God could prevent them, and a completely good God would have a motivation to do so. It is, therefore, possible to deduce from the problem of evil that the traditional theistic God (omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good) does not exist. The evidential problem of evil, on the other hand, argues that the existence of the type of terrible suffering we know occurs gives good evidence that such a God does not exist.

The Evidential Problem of Evil

The evidential problem of evil questions whether the presence of evil implies the absence of God, knowledge, a perfect being in power, and goodness. Evidential arguments from evil try to show that excluding any evidence for God’s existence makes it unlikely, if not highly unlikely, that an omnipotent, omniscient, and entirely good created and governed the world. Not to confuse evil’s logical arguments, which prove that God cannot exist in a world full of evil.

The problem

“Is God willing but unable to prevent evil?” Epicurus asks in his Natural Religion Dialogues. So he’s powerless. Is he willing but unable? So he’s malevolent. Is he willing and able? So, where is evil? The issue has long served as a powerful argument favouring atheism because an omnipotent entity can do anything. If God exists, there is no evil. Because evil exists in the world and God does not. There are both moral and natural evils in this case, as in the problem of evil itself.

It doesn’t recognise that removing one evil leads to the rise of another or that the presence of one evil implies the existence of a good state of affairs that morally outweighs it. Also, an omnipotent creature may have logical limits. Sceptics see evil as evidence that God is unlikely rather than impossible, which is the case for most. Evil, like the argument from design, which compares the apparent design in the cosmos to the design involved in human creations, sometimes cancels any evidence that God exists. So Hume spends much of his Dialogues criticising the famous 18th-century design argument. There is various evidence to indicate the divine existence designer of the world, but not traditional theistic religions God.

Theistic responses

Religious people have used two major strategies. One way is to give a theodicy, which explains why God permits evil, such as necessary sin consequences, or this is “best of all possible worlds,” as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz stated. The alternative option is to argue that the presence of evil is compatible with God’s might, goodness, and wisdom. For many theologians and philosophers, attempting to understand God’s inscrutable purposes by first-kind accounts is either implausible or foolish.

For the problem of evil, there are various responses, some used in both defences and theodicies. The free will argument states that if humans have free will, they should choose evil. It implies humans are genuinely free and fail to think of natural evil, except human causes like greed enhance it. Another argument is that natural evils help us learn and mature.By forcing people to face hardship, need, and danger, natural evils may assist build virtues like courage and generosity. After death, life is a reward and the state where suffering the human and God brings good out of evil will clear. Many thinkers do not believe that evil existence establishes atheism.

Problem with evil and suffering

It implies either God does not exist or he is incapable of being almighty, omnibenevolent, and omniscient due to the presence of evil and suffering in the world. It might be difficult for some religious people to maintain their faith when facing challenges and tragedy, and therefore, they may decide to reject religion.

Conclusion

The problem of evil is an attempt to reconcile evil with an omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent God. An evil argument tries to prove that evil and God cannot coexist. Contradictions discussed under theodicy. Many discussions about evil occur in secular and evolutionary ethics.

Non-theistic or polytheistic faiths study the problem of evil, such as Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and monotheistic religions like Judaism, Christianity, and  Islam.

The problem of evil is how to believe in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God in the world’s reality of evil and suffering.