Problem of Evil Author of the text: Mark Black Evil contrast This argument, in its simplest form says that if evil did not exist, there would also be good. If you want to be more precise, we should add here that the good is not so much disappear as would cease to be noticeable. Such clarification, however, negates the meaning of the argument, which in this form is in favor of the fact that God would suspend its work for the good just because you do not make it universal. But close eye on the difficulty and assume eg., that greater good is noticeable though its amount less than the amount greater but imperceptible. In this situation, however, would be enough for a good perception, a certain minimum amount of evil; but our reality is generally understood evil, full. You can argue over the mutual proportions of good and evil, does not change the fact that evil is certainly more than the same phenomenon would require contrast. In other words, the argument of contrast can justify the existence of a minute quantity of evil, in any event, does not explain the existence of the rest (the majority) the amount of evil. Lesser evil for the greater good According to proponents of this argument, the evil can be used to achieve, highlight, provoke some good. Okay, we need in this situation considered greater than the evil which his speech was preceded by. In such a situation, even though there is evil, the balance remains positive. The first difficulty we encountered on the argument that the principles and criteria of evaluation of good and evil. Przymknijmy eye on this difficulty, and look where it leads in the form of the difficulty untamed. For attention, let us cite examples to illustrate the validity of this approach. Although the pain is physical evil, we ourselves or someone for him to undergo treatment. We have invested in this way a lesser evil in order to achieve the greater good. If there were no people or animals regrettable, he would not have the opportunity to develop a whole set of good qualities or behaviors such as compassion, and assistance, dedication etc. So we see that evil can lead to good and even, in some circumstances it may be necessary to its occurrence. Difficulty before he becomes this argument lies in the fact that not every evil leads to good. Recall that the purpose of this argument is the ultimate balance of good and evil with a positive result. However, we do not get this result, because a large part of the evil that does not lead to good at all, let alone the greater good. Furthermore, we must be aware of the fact that the above rule as well work the other way. In other words, it is not difficult to imagine that the good analogy can lead to evil or be necessary for its occurrence. So that argument explains the existence of a (significant in relation to the previous argument) the amount of evil; remains helpless against the rest of the evil. Here, with the help seems to him to come the next argument. The evil results from the free will of man God created us free beings, we do so evil, evil which He is not to blame. As you can see, we are dealing with an attempt to transfer the responsibility for evil from God to the people. At the outset, in order to use this argument, we must admit that human freedom is in itself a good greater than the evil which results from it - if only because god will perform its definicjonalne quest for good. This assumption is the first difficulty encountered by the argument for free will because it forces the valuation of good and evil (as was the case with the previous argument). Again, do not dwell on this difficulty. Assume that God actually gave us free will. There are two alternatives for the implementation by the god of the free will and so; either we have free will in the sense that the will of God can not control, or it may but does not. The first possibility leads to a paradox on which encounter any questions about whether God can make something so that he could not? - Therefore lets second eventuality not Lead to such difficulties. Finally, we draw a picture of a situation in which the god in the face of every man to inflict evil refrain from its correction, and therefore which condones the evil god. Of course the question arises whether such consent is not in itself evil. With regard to the people, this question remains unresolved, including at least the sense that there is no consensus among ethicists for answers. Intuitively, it is understood, however, that the problem becomes greater the less effort is necessary to prevent evil. If this type of prevention would require such. Sacrifice of life, health, etc. For the most part be inclined to say that consent is not an evil, or that it is an evil little. If, however, preventing require only negligible effort to skłanialibyśmy to assign such acquiescence marked by evil. In the case, however, the essence of the divine omnipotence endowed feature, the effort required to implement any plans, will be reduced to virtually zero. This means that this kind of permission and becomes totally full evil. Such an approach does not so bad separation from God and wanting to use the argument of free will, we are forced to turn to the first of the alternatives, and assume that the god (in some way) can, and makes us free in such a way that he can not limit our choices. In such a situation, however, the question arises: why God did not create us beings who are at the same time totally free and always choose good? - Here the problem arises if at all possible is the existence of such beings in particular, if we can call such elections free elections, which are always good. We will not deal with this issue here. Just point to the accepted definition of god, as it turns out it exemplifies just such a possibility by which we mean. In addition, if we find that the majority of Christians recognizes the existence of the post-mortem or post-apocalyptic paradise that its members remain free but there is no sin in it, or recognize that such creatures as most may exist. So God fulfilling his desire to do good will to us as created. What does this mean? Any arguments (that I know of) to defend the title of the god in the light of the problem can be reduced to one of three approaches presented, or any mixture thereof. So what is the rank of this observation? The unsolved problem is a serious argument against the existence of such a god, spoken definition. Some of the difficulties to which we discussed above can be removed or alleviated by modifying the definition of that, in such a way that this would restrict certain features of god. Not concentrated on this problem, because most Christians uses the idea of God located in the definition adopted here. On the other hand, can not be regarded as a reasoning problem of title evidence, it does not constitute, in particular, the proof of non-existence of God and the only strongly undermines this idea ---------------------------
Posted on: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 15:33:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015