The first idea we face, is the logical problem of evil. What this questions is the possibility of there being an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omnipresent God and why evil still exists. One of the arguments made is, there is a God who is omnibenevolent and supposedly all good eliminates evil as far as it can, but we still have evil existing when there’s a God. By stating all of these, we have to give up one of the statements in order to make the argument true. The one fact that we can more than likely give up, is all good eliminates evil as far as it can. The reason why we give this up is because getting rid of God being omnibenevolent would diminish the idea of him existing. Not only that, you can’t get rid of evil because evil actually
…show more content…
I say this because he kind of avoids the evils by coming up with excuses for as to why they occur still, rather than going against the occurrence. For example one thing he states is, since God is the father of us he has parental rights to allow us to suffer. This idea similarly follows the evidential problem of evil in the way that God has the right to have us suffer because in the end we gain greater good. He also states that suffering is a privilege even if that privilege seems to be forced upon you. However I feel like this is just a way of saying that evil happens no matter what. So you might as well interpret it as suffering is evil you can gain knowledge from, so that other things don’t seem as bad and will end up being good. You can see it as, if you face this extremely bad suffering; such as cancer than the other sufferings you face throughout life will seem good rather than the evil you experienced previously. Swinburne seeks to take the weight off of God’s shoulders by saying we have the free will to experience evil in most cases such as moral evil cases. Supposedly you can only torture a person for so long, until they won’t be tortured anymore after spending that time experiencing it. We can think about the Holocaust when this idea is brought up. Jews suffered for twelve years before the Holocaust ceased, some Jews however didn’t even last that long. Some were killed, died of starvation, tortured or many other things within the length of the
I say this because he kind of avoids the evils by coming up with excuses for as to why they occur still, rather than going against the occurrence. For example one thing he states is, since God is the father of us he has parental rights to allow us to suffer. This idea similarly follows the evidential problem of evil in the way that God has the right to have us suffer because in the end we gain greater good. He also states that suffering is a privilege even if that privilege seems to be forced upon you. However I feel like this is just a way of saying that evil happens no matter what. So you might as well interpret it as suffering is evil you can gain knowledge from, so that other things don’t seem as bad and will end up being good. You can see it as, if you face this extremely bad suffering; such as cancer than the other sufferings you face throughout life will seem good rather than the evil you experienced previously. Swinburne seeks to take the weight off of God’s shoulders by saying we have the free will to experience evil in most cases such as moral evil cases. Supposedly you can only torture a person for so long, until they won’t be tortured anymore after spending that time experiencing it. We can think about the Holocaust when this idea is brought up. Jews suffered for twelve years before the Holocaust ceased, some Jews however didn’t even last that long. Some were killed, died of starvation, tortured or many other things within the length of the