David lane 88 precepts pdf

God is unlikely or impossible. The problem of evil is david lane 88 precepts pdf formulated in two forms: the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil. Responses to various versions of the problem of evil, meanwhile, come in three forms: refutations, defenses, and theodicies.

A wide range of responses have been made against these arguments. The problem of evil refers to the challenge of reconciling belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The problem may be described either experientially or theoretically. The experiential problem is the difficulty in believing in a concept of a loving God when confronted by suffering or evil in the real world, such as from epidemics, or wars, or murder, or rape or terror attacks wherein innocent children, women, men or a loved one becomes a victim. The problem of evil is also a theoretical one, usually described and studied by religion scholars in two varieties: the logical problem and the evidential problem. There is evil in the world.

Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god does not exist. If its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.

An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists. God could very well exist with and allow evil in order to achieve a greater good. If God lacks any one of these qualities—omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence—then the logical problem of evil can be resolved. God is not wholly good.

In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering. Rowe also cites the example of human evil where an innocent child is a victim of violence and thereby suffers. As an example, a critic of Plantinga’s idea of “a mighty nonhuman spirit” causing natural evils may concede that the existence of such a being is not logically impossible but argue that due to lacking scientific evidence for its existence this is very unlikely and thus it is an unconvincing explanation for the presence of natural evils. Both absolute versions and relative versions of the evidential problems of evil are presented below. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists. The problem of evil has also been extended beyond human suffering, to include suffering of animals from cruelty, disease and evil. One version of this problem includes animal suffering from natural evil, such as the violence and fear faced by animals from predators, natural disasters, over the history of evolution. The second version of the problem of evil applied to animals, and avoidable suffering experienced by them, is one caused by some human beings, such as from animal cruelty or when they are shot or slaughtered. Scholar Michael Almeida said this was “perhaps the most serious and difficult” version of the problem of evil.

God is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good. The evil of extensive animal suffering exists. Necessarily, God can actualize an evolutionary perfect world. Necessarily, God can actualize an evolutionary perfect world only if God does actualize an evolutionary perfect world. Necessarily, God actualized an evolutionary perfect world. 5 is true, but not both. This task does not require the identification of a plausible explanation of evil, and is successful if the explanation provided shows that the existence of God and the existence of evil are logically compatible.