The Human Problem and Solution
Karma, Reincarnation, & The Problem of Evil brings up the idea of why there is evil according to Buddhists and Hindus. According to these religions, one is punished or rewarded for their decisions, or karma, which is defined as the sum of a person’s actions in this and previous states of existence. A person’s karma decides what state they are reborn in, through rebirth. This view solves the problem seen in the theistic view of a personal God allowing evil to happen, instead believing in the popular proverb, “We reap what we sow,” which justifies bad situations in life, rather than believing that a personal God would allow so many bad things to happen. Instead, karmic law of cause and effect says that a person’s …show more content…
God allows some evil because if he eliminated evil, he would have to eliminate free will as well; God allows evil for the sake of the greater good, because he cannot get rid of all evil and suffering without also getting rid of morally significant free will. It is not an option for God to only give humans good choices as options, so there is no suffering, as that would not truly be free will.The example used in the article was the immunization of a child. The needle hurts, but getting sick would hurt more, so the needle prick is allowed. “Evaluating the Free Will Defense” supports this claim by stating that Plantinga’s theory doesn’t necessarily have to be true, it only has to give an example of a scenario in which God and evil could coexist, and find a morally sufficient reason for why God would allow …show more content…
He argues that if there is an all knowing, all powerful, all good God, he would not allow people to feel the intense pain that humans feel. This means that God can not have all of these traits, or does not exist. In order for God to coexist with evil, at least one of these three claims is false, or God does not exist. This is a solid argument for atheism, or disproving the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, good God unless there is another factor that causes this God to let evil happen, such as suffering is punishment for sinning, a form of test, or God is stopping a larger evil by letting a small evil happen.
Indirect Inductive Versions of the Evidential Argument from Evil
David Hume states that is is not possible to find that the universe is perfectly good, or perfectly evil, because both are seen in the universe. One can not claim that the universe is wholly good, when it is clearly not, and one can not claim that the universe is wholly bad either, because good is seen in the world. Thus, Hume claims that the universe has neither goodness nor malice. The nature of the universe can not be decided by the good or evil actions of a thing that is not human, and is only decided by human actions, because humans have free
Karma, Reincarnation, & The Problem of Evil brings up the idea of why there is evil according to Buddhists and Hindus. According to these religions, one is punished or rewarded for their decisions, or karma, which is defined as the sum of a person’s actions in this and previous states of existence. A person’s karma decides what state they are reborn in, through rebirth. This view solves the problem seen in the theistic view of a personal God allowing evil to happen, instead believing in the popular proverb, “We reap what we sow,” which justifies bad situations in life, rather than believing that a personal God would allow so many bad things to happen. Instead, karmic law of cause and effect says that a person’s …show more content…
God allows some evil because if he eliminated evil, he would have to eliminate free will as well; God allows evil for the sake of the greater good, because he cannot get rid of all evil and suffering without also getting rid of morally significant free will. It is not an option for God to only give humans good choices as options, so there is no suffering, as that would not truly be free will.The example used in the article was the immunization of a child. The needle hurts, but getting sick would hurt more, so the needle prick is allowed. “Evaluating the Free Will Defense” supports this claim by stating that Plantinga’s theory doesn’t necessarily have to be true, it only has to give an example of a scenario in which God and evil could coexist, and find a morally sufficient reason for why God would allow …show more content…
He argues that if there is an all knowing, all powerful, all good God, he would not allow people to feel the intense pain that humans feel. This means that God can not have all of these traits, or does not exist. In order for God to coexist with evil, at least one of these three claims is false, or God does not exist. This is a solid argument for atheism, or disproving the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, good God unless there is another factor that causes this God to let evil happen, such as suffering is punishment for sinning, a form of test, or God is stopping a larger evil by letting a small evil happen.
Indirect Inductive Versions of the Evidential Argument from Evil
David Hume states that is is not possible to find that the universe is perfectly good, or perfectly evil, because both are seen in the universe. One can not claim that the universe is wholly good, when it is clearly not, and one can not claim that the universe is wholly bad either, because good is seen in the world. Thus, Hume claims that the universe has neither goodness nor malice. The nature of the universe can not be decided by the good or evil actions of a thing that is not human, and is only decided by human actions, because humans have free