14

What you describe is called in theology and philosophy of religion "The problem of evil" and has been discussed by many theologians. A counter argument to the problem of evil is called a Theodicy. There have been many notable theodicies throughout history. A notable historical theodicy was presented by Augustine of Hippo (St Augustine), in his works "...


9

Yes, some Christian Apologists such as Ravi Zacharias assert that the question itself is self-defeating: ...Whenever a person raises the problem of evil, they are implicitly also positing the existence of good. When you say something is evil, you assume something is good. When you assume something is good, you assume there is a moral law by which to ...


7

This is not strictly speaking a contradiction, unless you add some premisses or formal definitions (such as: an omnibenevolent being does not want evil to exist, an omnipotent being makes what he wishes be the case etc.). They are implicit in your reasoning but they can be discussed. (Even with these premisses, it's only a contradiction, of course, if you ...


6

I think why you're not seeing the problem is in what you're eliding with "superior Being". The (traditional) "problem of evil" only arises if we describe a being that is omniscient, omnipotent, and good. (See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/#RelConGod -- added due to Swami's comment) Without omnipotence, this being would not necessarily be capable of ...


5

Nice question, and not as easy to answer as one might think. I was struck by the following passage : Monotheists say the number of gods is 1....[T]he main way of arguing for the existence of exactly one god includes the assumption that to be a god is to be maximally perfect. Thus x is a god iff x is more perfect than (is greater than) every ...


4

There's several interlocking questions you're raising. First, there are three major theories of why we punish crime as a society. You've identified two: Reform - that the punishment is about rehabilitating the criminal (a view largely associated with Mill) Deterrence - that by having punishments we decrease crime Retribution - that crime requires ...


3

Most if not all Christians would reject the antecedent you presented and instead simply say God gave us free will and we are free to choose to do things that he approves of (good) or disapproves of (evil). In this sense good and evil are not notions that are created, but rather consequences of free will.


3

"It's been argued that God doesn't exist because there is so much evil in the world. For example, suppose a person is violently murdered - an innocent child say. They argue, God could have prevented that but He didn't, therefore He does not exist. Are there any good counter arguments to this position?" That's a very wrong conclusion. "God could have ...


3

BUT IS THERE A CONTRADICTION ? Nelson Pike has a formal argument to reconcile the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (perfectly good) God with the existence of evil in the form of suffering : (a) An ommipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being would create the best of all possible worlds; (b) It is logically possible - ...


3

Good and evil in both Hinduism and Buddhism are terms belonging to the relative world only, not to the ultimate reality. Karma also belongs in the sphere of the relative world also. All Hindus and Buddhists, regardless of their philosophical differences as to the nature of the ultimate reality agree on this. From an absolute or ultimate aspect, Krishna ...


2

The statement "God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent" and "Evil exists in the world" is a contradiction. You yourself give the argument in the question. I do not know about a logical trick to work around this contradiction by employing a different calculus of logic. I doubt whether a different calculus resolves the contradiction. Of course, ...


2

Mystical spiritual minds and traditions would say that both good and evil are merely elements of the cosmic drama, and each has something to teach the evolving soul in its journey toward perfection. Western minds and traditions tend not to look so philosophically on life. What leads us to refer to something as "evil" ? Because it causes shock and pain ? ...


2

It's a paradox, and amusingly the self-contradiction is already there within just the first clause of the problem. To state that God (or anything) "is omnipotent" is a paradox by itself. Using the most obvious/common definition of being omnipotent, it means the answer to whether you can do something is always true. But then you could possess a trait and ...


2

...God doesn't exist because there is so much evil in the world. The implication being that if God is real and Righteous, it would prevent all unhappiness and grief by prohibiting evil from existence. But that doesn't make sense, because: God didn't create evil, because the scriptures say both that God is not the author of confusion and that God quite ...


2

Circular definition. The author freely uses terms like “harm,” “pain,” or “suffering” without defining those terms. That isn't what circularity is, though. If we want to define all the terms we use in every paper then we'd be presented with a never ending task (or otherwise actually be circular) because we need to define every word that we use for defining ...


2

For your consideration. The following theologist says (debatably, as you like) as soon as philosophy considers the question of evil it becomes theology. In ideal forms he says being begins in innocence, which is neither good nor evil. It develops crudely, with an element of self-centeredness (taken to a comic extreme as Dr. Evil incarnate). Then Dr. Evil ...


2

Is their differentiation possible only on the basis of the counterpart's existence? Here are some notes on how Hegel's phenomenology lays out evil as an immature state of being - a state of being which overturns itself to overcome evil. https://vdocuments.com.br/altizer-godhead-and-the-nothing.html Primordial Evil ... while Hegel follows ...


2

Evil as an existential necessity - no Some word or concept pairings are logically connected : cause and effect, wife and husband, valley and mountain. Good and evil do not appear to fall within this class because there is a third term : neutral. You cannot have a wife without there being at least at some time a husband. The existence of good is not ...


1

All Monotheistic theologies/philosophies struggle with this question. Monists have no problems with the question. The Advaita (monistic) philosophy says the question is illogical and cannot be answered. Swami Vivekananda in a lecture from 1896 says (Complete Works, Vol 3, Lectures and Discourses, 'The Free Soul' - https://advaitaashrama.org/cw/content.php): ...


1

The psychiatrist M. Scott Peck in trying to construct a "psychology of evil" provides a "working definition" that he illustrates with case studies: (page 43) Evil, then, for the moment, is that force, residing either inside or outside of human beings, that seeks to kill life or liveliness. And goodness is its opposite. Goodness is that which promotes life ...


1

In contemporary philosophy, is Plantinga generally considered to have been successful in his attempted refutation of the logical problem of evil? Absolutely not. At best his argument could be considered valid for a world that permitted evil but where that evil did not have deleterious effects on innocents. Essentially, he has collapsed the problem of evil ...


1

How do you define 'evil'? Is it a cause of negativity at every causal link, from every frame of reference? Such Divine Evil and Divine Good is not perceived on this plane - even wiping our all of life on Earth will get a cheer from a few strange humans - 'evil' that depends on a frame of reference. The problem of evil is that it assumes that the word and ...


1

My concept of God is that it is not meaningful to describe the omnipotent God as bound by any human constructs of logic or any other mortal rule. Just doesn't make sense to say that "God must do this or God must do that or God cannot do this other thing." I think that God chose to give people (as well as other creatures) free will and to make that will ...


1

Here is, I think, a counter argument to God not existing because there is evil. It is that God does exist because there is evil. God exists. God has made all things. Evil exists. Therefore God had a holy motive for creating evil. When God created He made something different from Himself. He made something that was not eternal [existing before time] like ...


1

One of the most unique and influential responses to the problem of evil can be seen as underlying the Platonic and neo-Platonic philosophies. In essence, the concept is that only Good really exists, that what appears to us as evil is primarily the absence of Good, and to a secondary extent, imperfect and corrupted copies or images of the Good. You can ...


1

My belief's are as follows: God wanted us to have a meaningful existence For existence to be meaningful, free will was necessary Free will implies the ability to make mistakes as well as the ability to purposefully cause harm (evil) God wanted us to learn from mistakes so that we can eventually get on the right path He thus gave us access to Himself via ...


1

Russell's paradox was resolved by changing the foundational concepts in Set Theory; an alternative resolution uses paraconsistent logic. Similarly theodicies resolve the problem of good and evil by resolving these concepts: for example, in Simone Weils concept of theology, evil is due to Gods absence in the world, and who is placed at an infinite distance ...


1

I would prefer to phrase the problem using suffering instead of evil. It is a tricky one for those who see evil and suffering as real and believe in a God as here defined. I would call it a contradiction as stated, one that derives immediately from the premises. I feel it shows that a more sophisticated idea of God, evil and suffering is required. These ...


1

Here is another perspective: Considering what happening the world today, if God influences our worldly aspects in any way, it means God is a sadistic psychotic tyrant. Therefore, it cannot be omnibenevolent (since evil does exist in plentiful quantities and usually is the less innocent categories that suffer the most). It is irrelevant how potent it is ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible