the problems of evil Flashcards
what are the 2 types of evil
- moral evil
- natural evil
moral evil
- harm or suffering that free agents/beings are responsible for
natural evil
harm or suffering that free agents/beings are not responsible for which is caused by natural/physical events and processes
evil
evil/suffering which provides negative affects from humans and sentient beings by providing suffering, harm and pain
logical problem of evil
P1: If God exists then God is omnibenevolent and so would be opposed to evil and would eliminate evil as far as it could.
P2: If God exists, then God is omnipotent and so would be able to eliminate evil
P3: If God exists then God is omniscient and so would know that evil exists and/or that it is about to come into existence.
C1: Therefore, if God exists then evil would not exist (God would know about it, want to get rid of it and be able to do this)
P4: But evil exists.
C2: Therefore, God does not exist.
what type of argument is the logical problem of evil
- deductive argument that argues that certain claims cannot all be true together
why is it called ‘logical’
- it is called the “logical” problem of evil - because it shows (if valid) that God’s existence is logically impossible if evil exists
- God’s existence and the existence of evil are logically incompatible.
- It is therefore sometimes also called the “incompatibility” version of the problem of evil.
The distinction between logical and evidential forms of the problem of evil
Some think that the existence of evil shows there cannot possibly be a God (the logical problem of evil); some think it (only) shows that there is probably not a God (the evidential problem of evil).
the logical problem of evil
- deductive (intended to be a valid argument)
- intended to prove that the existence of evil means that gods existence is impossible.
- deductive argument that attempts to show that there are certain facts about the evil in the world that are logically incompatible with the existence of God.
- attempts to establish the very strong claim that given that evil exists, it is therefore logically impossible for it to be the case that God exists
the evidential problem of evil
- is non-deductive/inductive (intended to be a strong (but not valid) argument)
- is intended to prove that the existence of evil means that God’s existence is unlikely
- evidential (or inductive/probabilistic) argument for the more modest claim that there are evils that actually exist in the world that make it unlikely or perhaps very unlikely that God exists.
which philosopher brought out the idea of the problems of evil
rowe
argument for the evidential problem of evil
P1: If an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God exists, then any evil that exists must exist for a morally good reason.
P2: We do not know of any morally good reason that would justify the existence of certain evil events that exist
(i.e. the case of Bambi: if there is a forest fire due to lighting striking a dead tree. in the fire, a fawn is trapped and horribly burnt and lies in terrible agony for several days before it dies.
all good state of affairs that we know if would meet at least one of the following conditions:
a) they could, as far as we know, be brought about by god without having to permit evil events
b) they would not, as far as we know, morally justify god in permitting evil events.
The case of sue: an actual event where a 5 year old girl was severely beaten, raped and then strangled to death in 1986.
P3: If we do not know of any morally good reason for many evil events, then there probably isn’t a morally good reason for at least some of these events. as rowe puts it, it is probable that we know about most good states of affairs and we know whether they would morally justify god in permitting such evil.
we constantly form beliefs about the future: the sun will rise tomorrow, chairs won’t suddenly sprout wings, and so on. We do this because we think the future will be like the past. Inferring from ‘nothing we know of will justify evil’ to ‘nothing will justify evil’ is just the same
C1: Therefore, for at least some evil events, there probably isn’t a morally good reason that would justify them. Therefore, it is probable that there is no good state of affairs at all that would morally justify God in permitting such evil events.
C2: Therefore, God [probably] doesn’t exist. Probabilistic conclusion from an inductive argument.
what type of argument is The evidential problem of evil
non-deductive as the premises do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion due to the possibility of gods existence
what type of justification is The evidential problem of evil
a posteriori as the premises are justified independently of experience: premise 2 case of sue.
Rowe’s evidential problem of evil (INDUCTIVE)
P1: No good state of affairs that we know of would, as far as we know, morally justify God in permitting certain kinds of evil events that exist (like E1 and E2).
In other words, all good state of affairs that we know of would meet at least one of the following conditions:
They could, as far as we know, be brought about by God without God having to permit evil events.
They would not, as far as we know, morally justify God in permitting evil events.
C1: Therefore, such evil events could only be justified if either (a) there was a good state of affairs that we don’t know about which justifies God in permitting them or (b) a good state of affairs we do know about justifies God in permitting them in a way that we don’t know about.
P2: It is probable that we know about most good states of affairs and we know whether they would morally justify God in permitting such evil.
C2: Therefore, it is probable that there is no good state of affairs at all that would morally justify God in permitting such evil events. This is just an inductive inference from what we know to what we don’t know.
P3: God would not permit evil if there was no good state of affairs at all that would morally justify God in permitting it.
C3:Therefore, it is probable that God does not exist.
