DOES THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD? (25 marks)
(pink = out of spec content)
LOA: No, Evil does not disprove God
CR: All Evil could lead to Greater Good (Free Will/Soul Making)
INTRO: The problem of evil argues against the coherence of the concept of God,
questioning why such a being would allow all the evil we experience in the world. This
includes both moral evil (caused by human actions) and natural evil (caused by natural
processes and disasters). The logical problem of evil is a deductive argument, which states
that evil is logically incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent God, while the evidential problem is an inductive argument, which claims
that the amount, kind and distribution of evil suggest that God is unlikely to exist. Although
the existence of God and evil can seem to contradict each other, there are many responses
to this issue, such as the free will theodicy and defence, and Hick’s soul making theodicy.
Therefore, I will argue that ultimately, the problem of evil does not disprove God’s existence.
The crucial reason for this is that all evil could lead to greater good, as shown by Plantinga’s
free will defence, and Hick’s soul making theodicy.
PARA 1 - LOGICAL PROBLEM & FREE WILL THEODICY:
P) Outline Logical Problem + ‘Evil’ as culturally constructed > Epicurean Paradox Origins
A) Free Will Theodicy
C) Determinism (No Free Will)
R) Midgley: Determinism is not Fatalism (we have Free Will)
E) Midgley’s response is strong, although I think the free will theodicy goes too far by trying
to prove God’s reason for allowing evil
PARA 2 - PLANTINGA’S FREE WILL defence:
A) Plantinga’s Free Will defence
C) Natural Evil isn’t explained by Free Will > Plantinga: Satan’s Free Will > Assumes God
R) Virtues are developed by Evil
E) Plantinga’s Free Will defence shows that evil and God are compatible, so Logical
Problem fails
PARA 3 - EVIDENTIAL PROBLEM:
P) Outline Evidential Problem (apply Plantinga’s Free Will defence > Natural Evil)
A) Hick’s Soul Making Theodicy (CR) + Evil as an Absence of Good (Midgley and Aquinas)
C) Not All Evil Contributes to Growth (Animals, Premature Death, Terrible Evil)
R) Epistemic Distance from God, Afterlife, Perspective
E) Hick’s Soul Making shows it’s possible all evil contributes to greater good
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the problem of evil does not disprove God’s existence,
because God and evil are compatible and could co-exist. The crucial reason for this is that
all evil could lead to greater good, as shown by Plantinga’s free will defence, and Hick’s soul
making theodicy, which demonstrates that even seemingly unfair evil is needed for growth
and development of virtues, so truly gratuitous evil doesn't exist.
(pink = out of spec content)
LOA: No, Evil does not disprove God
CR: All Evil could lead to Greater Good (Free Will/Soul Making)
INTRO: The problem of evil argues against the coherence of the concept of God,
questioning why such a being would allow all the evil we experience in the world. This
includes both moral evil (caused by human actions) and natural evil (caused by natural
processes and disasters). The logical problem of evil is a deductive argument, which states
that evil is logically incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent God, while the evidential problem is an inductive argument, which claims
that the amount, kind and distribution of evil suggest that God is unlikely to exist. Although
the existence of God and evil can seem to contradict each other, there are many responses
to this issue, such as the free will theodicy and defence, and Hick’s soul making theodicy.
Therefore, I will argue that ultimately, the problem of evil does not disprove God’s existence.
The crucial reason for this is that all evil could lead to greater good, as shown by Plantinga’s
free will defence, and Hick’s soul making theodicy.
PARA 1 - LOGICAL PROBLEM & FREE WILL THEODICY:
P) Outline Logical Problem + ‘Evil’ as culturally constructed > Epicurean Paradox Origins
A) Free Will Theodicy
C) Determinism (No Free Will)
R) Midgley: Determinism is not Fatalism (we have Free Will)
E) Midgley’s response is strong, although I think the free will theodicy goes too far by trying
to prove God’s reason for allowing evil
PARA 2 - PLANTINGA’S FREE WILL defence:
A) Plantinga’s Free Will defence
C) Natural Evil isn’t explained by Free Will > Plantinga: Satan’s Free Will > Assumes God
R) Virtues are developed by Evil
E) Plantinga’s Free Will defence shows that evil and God are compatible, so Logical
Problem fails
PARA 3 - EVIDENTIAL PROBLEM:
P) Outline Evidential Problem (apply Plantinga’s Free Will defence > Natural Evil)
A) Hick’s Soul Making Theodicy (CR) + Evil as an Absence of Good (Midgley and Aquinas)
C) Not All Evil Contributes to Growth (Animals, Premature Death, Terrible Evil)
R) Epistemic Distance from God, Afterlife, Perspective
E) Hick’s Soul Making shows it’s possible all evil contributes to greater good
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the problem of evil does not disprove God’s existence,
because God and evil are compatible and could co-exist. The crucial reason for this is that
all evil could lead to greater good, as shown by Plantinga’s free will defence, and Hick’s soul
making theodicy, which demonstrates that even seemingly unfair evil is needed for growth
and development of virtues, so truly gratuitous evil doesn't exist.
