The Problem of Evil, Another Theological Problem Options

[Simba]

The "problem of evil" is an argument against the existence of an omnipotent, omni-benevolent God. Basically, this proposes that an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God and evil existing in our world contradict and that because there is clearly evil in the world, God cannot exist.

The logical problem of evil argument, I personally think, does the best job of making what the problem of evil is proposing clear.

1. God exists. (premise)
2. God is omnipotent. (premise - or true by definition of the word 'God')
3. God is all-benevolent. (premise - or true by definition)
4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise - or true by definition)
5. All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise)
6. God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
7. God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)

1. Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways which do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
2. God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1)
3. God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)

8. God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)
9. Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
10. Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, or he is not both omnipotent and all-benevolent or there is a reason why He does not act immediately.

On the flip side, one of the most popular defenses is proposed by Augustine of Hippo, a Christian, which basically goes that evil is only the complete deprivation of good.

I personally think that argument is relatively weak, so I'll also throw in the free will argument (which basically states that God gave us free will as to not have us as "mindless robots") just to have the topic start out somewhat neutral.

1. Free will requires the potential to so anything one chooses. (premise, or by definition)
2. Thus, free will requires the potential to do evil.
3. Thus, removing the potential to do evil would remove free will.

Discuss.

[Mr. Slowjamz]

^ o boy i think you got everything right Arjuna . yet i feel in this case that this sort of feeling coincides with the "discipline atitude" and the responsibility atitude.