The Question of Evil
The problem of evil stems from the idea that since there are vast amounts of evil in the world, God cannot exist. Critics argue that this is the case because if He did exist, we would not find evils in our world. This objection is formulated into the Argument from Evil, which proceeds as follows:
P1: If God exists, then He is omnipotent and morally perfect.
P2: If God is omnipotent, then He would be able to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world.
P3: If God is morally perfect, then he would want to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world.
P4: We still find vast amounts of evil and suffering in the world.
C1: Therefore, God is not benevolent and morally perfect.
C2: Therefore, God doesn’t exist. …show more content…
This means that the amount of good in the world exceeds the amount of evil and the scale will be tipped in the favor of good, rather than evil. Therefore, the net value of the world would be inherently good. Moreover, the addition of evil into our world actually maximizes the amount of good we see in our world and results in a higher net good. If we lived in a world with no evil, we would have a low level of “good” as humans would be living very mundane lives. However, with the introduction of evil, the amount of good jumps up exponentially and the net outcome of good is higher than it previously was. This is seen in BC Johnson’s argument with the dying baby (148). A baby dies in a natural fire. At first this seems like a horrendous evil that is hard to fathom. However, through this evil, we are still able to maximize the amount of good prevalent in the world. Johnson’s example argues that this initial fire and death causes a sense of urgency in the community (148). This initial evil would cause the fire department to become more efficient, builders to construct more fire-preventing utilities in houses, etc. and overall increase society 's response to fires. Therefore, in the end, more people will survive by learning from this calamity and the net benefit of the initial evil will still be good because the overall “level of good” has
The problem of evil stems from the idea that since there are vast amounts of evil in the world, God cannot exist. Critics argue that this is the case because if He did exist, we would not find evils in our world. This objection is formulated into the Argument from Evil, which proceeds as follows:
P1: If God exists, then He is omnipotent and morally perfect.
P2: If God is omnipotent, then He would be able to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world.
P3: If God is morally perfect, then he would want to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world.
P4: We still find vast amounts of evil and suffering in the world.
C1: Therefore, God is not benevolent and morally perfect.
C2: Therefore, God doesn’t exist. …show more content…
This means that the amount of good in the world exceeds the amount of evil and the scale will be tipped in the favor of good, rather than evil. Therefore, the net value of the world would be inherently good. Moreover, the addition of evil into our world actually maximizes the amount of good we see in our world and results in a higher net good. If we lived in a world with no evil, we would have a low level of “good” as humans would be living very mundane lives. However, with the introduction of evil, the amount of good jumps up exponentially and the net outcome of good is higher than it previously was. This is seen in BC Johnson’s argument with the dying baby (148). A baby dies in a natural fire. At first this seems like a horrendous evil that is hard to fathom. However, through this evil, we are still able to maximize the amount of good prevalent in the world. Johnson’s example argues that this initial fire and death causes a sense of urgency in the community (148). This initial evil would cause the fire department to become more efficient, builders to construct more fire-preventing utilities in houses, etc. and overall increase society 's response to fires. Therefore, in the end, more people will survive by learning from this calamity and the net benefit of the initial evil will still be good because the overall “level of good” has