Theist’s claim that God created the world and continues to support and uphold. Theists also believe that God is perfectly good, all – knowing and all- powerful. But how could there be a God if there is evil and suffering in a world that was created by God? God is said to be perfectly good, all-knowing, and all-powerful. So if God exists then how is there both moral and natural evils in the world? This problem of evil is a very important issue and needs to be solved.
The Problem of Evil can be written out in four propositions, all of which theists would agree with, in order to complete the argument an atheist would add the final two premises:
1. God is perfectly good.
2. God is all – knowing (omniscient).
3. God is all – powerful (omnipotent). …show more content…
After the death of their child the parent went on to become an advocate and sponsor for the cure of the terminal disease. This parent raised tons of money and helped many other families who are currently going through what they went through before their child died. The greater goods defense believes that the evil of their child was necessary for the parent to do so much good for the community and that the impact they made outweighs the pain and suffering they went through after losing their child.
This defense believes that the courage and compassion the parent had after losing their child would not be possible if their child survived the illness. Therefore, this overcoming of a natural evil makes the world a better place by enriching the human race.
John Hick’s theodicy has been criticized by Edward H. Madden and Peter H. Hare. They believe that Hick’s theodicy is an “all or nothing” fallacy. The greater goods defense supports the idea that people must suffer, like the example of the parent losing their child, in order to become a better person with forgiving characteristics. In Hicks argument he assumes that God chooses people to go through evil events rather than not have any evil. In this theodicy God it is believed that God is choosing for there to be evil in the world and therefore he is not perfectly
The Problem of Evil can be written out in four propositions, all of which theists would agree with, in order to complete the argument an atheist would add the final two premises:
1. God is perfectly good.
2. God is all – knowing (omniscient).
3. God is all – powerful (omnipotent). …show more content…
After the death of their child the parent went on to become an advocate and sponsor for the cure of the terminal disease. This parent raised tons of money and helped many other families who are currently going through what they went through before their child died. The greater goods defense believes that the evil of their child was necessary for the parent to do so much good for the community and that the impact they made outweighs the pain and suffering they went through after losing their child.
This defense believes that the courage and compassion the parent had after losing their child would not be possible if their child survived the illness. Therefore, this overcoming of a natural evil makes the world a better place by enriching the human race.
John Hick’s theodicy has been criticized by Edward H. Madden and Peter H. Hare. They believe that Hick’s theodicy is an “all or nothing” fallacy. The greater goods defense supports the idea that people must suffer, like the example of the parent losing their child, in order to become a better person with forgiving characteristics. In Hicks argument he assumes that God chooses people to go through evil events rather than not have any evil. In this theodicy God it is believed that God is choosing for there to be evil in the world and therefore he is not perfectly