The Problem of Evil (How Can A Good God Allow Evil?)
The fourth and final approach, which has been set out by MichaelTooley, involves the idea of bringing a substantive theory ofinductive logic, or logical probability, to bear upon the argumentfrom evil, and then to argue that when this is done, one can derive aformula giving the probability that God does not exist relative toinformation about the number of apparent evils to be found in theworld.
God’s Sovereignty and the Existence of Evil
A hadith-i sharif says:
(A person who does not believe that qadar, good, and evil are from Allah is not a Believer.) [Tirmidhi]
Of the ahl al-bid'ah (people of innovation), some reject qadar, and some reject the fact that good and evil are from Allahu ta'ala.
If the ontological argument were sound, it would provide a ratherdecisive refutation of the argument from evil. For in showing notmerely that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfectbeing, but also that it is necessary that such a being exists, it wouldentail that the proposition that God does not exist must haveprobability zero on any body of evidence whatever.
The Problem of Evil (How Can A Good God ..
A final important theodicy involves the following ideas: first, itis important that events in the world take place in a regular way,since otherwise effective action would be impossible; secondly, eventswill exhibit regular patterns only if they are governed by naturallaws; thirdly, if events are governed by natural laws, the operationof those laws will give rise to events that harm individuals; so,fourthly, God’s allowing natural evils is justified because theexistence of natural evils is entailed by natural laws, and a worldwithout natural laws would be a much worse world.
The Problem of Evil: Why Would a Good God Create Suffering?
Some writers, such as C. S. Lewis and Alvin Plantinga, havesuggested that such evils may ultimately be due to the immoral actionsof supernatural beings (Lewis, 1957, 122–3; Plantinga, 1974a, 58). Ifthat were so, then the first two objections mentioned above wouldapply: one would have many more cases where individuals were beinggiven the power—much greater than the power that any humanhas—to inflict great harm on others, and then were being allowedby God to use that power to perform horrendously evil actions leadingto enormous suffering and many deaths. In addition, however, it canplausibly be argued that, though it is possible that earthquakes,hurricanes, cancer, and the predation of animals are all caused bymalevolent supernatural beings, the probability that this is so isextremely low.
Tree of the knowledge of good and evil - Wikipedia
Is this theodicy satisfactory? There are a number of reasons forholding that it is not. First, what about the horrendous sufferingthat people undergo, either at the hands of others—as in theHolocaust—or because of terminal illnesses such as cancer? Onewriter—Eleonore Stump—has suggested that the terriblesuffering that many people undergo at the ends of their lives, incases where it cannot be alleviated, is to be viewed as suffering thathas been ordained by God for the spiritual health of the individual inquestion (1993b, 349). But given that it does not seem to be truethat terrible terminal illnesses more commonly fall upon those in badspiritual health than upon those of good character, let alone thatthey fall only upon the former, this ‘spiritualchemotherapy’ view seems quite hopeless. More generally, thereseems to be no reason at all why a world must contain horrendoussuffering if it is to provide a good environment for the developmentof character in response to challenges and temptations.
The Problem of Evil: Why Would a Good God Create …
Hick’s basic suggestion, then, is that soul-making is a great good,that God would therefore be justified in designing a world with thatpurpose in mind, that our world is very well designed in that regard,and thus that, if one views evil as a problem, it is because onemistakenly thinks that the world ought, instead, to be a hedonisticparadise.