PHLA10 – Reason and Truth
Paper 1
The Problem of Evil
Generations of humans have believed in the existence of God, a being that has the ultimate powerful,
omnipotent, that is all knowing, omniscient, and that is morally perfect, omnibenevolent. But in times of
suffering and loss many people doubt the existence of God. How can such a being let suffering, pain, evil
be in our world? This doubt was dwelled into by a philosopher named Henry John McCloskey. He argued
that this is the problem of evil. This argument states the if god is omniscient, they know that evil exists;
if god is omnibenevolent, they would hate evil; and if god were omnipotent, they would have the power
to erase evil from existence, hence god and evil cannot coexist. It concludes that the existence of evil in
our earth indicates that god doesn’t exist. Throughout the course of this essay, I will be assessing
whether the argument works. (In section 1, I will present weaknesses in the premises of the problem of
evil claim and possible responses against the weakness. In section two I will analyze counterclaims
against the problem of evil.)
For clarity I would lie to define the meaning of good and evil that will be inferred in this paper. Good is
the interpretation of perfect morality and evil is the opposite of molarity also include evil included by
nature, for example, natural disasters.
Section 1 - weakness in the claim:
McCloskey’s claim is based on premises on god being omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. In
my view this premises makes the argument weak because it doesn’t explore if the idea of God being
omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient might be wrong. Wouldn’t the premise collapse if God
wasn’t omnipotent or omnibenevolent or omniscient, as they wouldn’t have the power to eliminate evil
or wouldn’t have the knowledge about evil or just would care about evil’s existence. Although if God is
defined in metaphysical way, they would still have great power, knowledge and moral. Therefore, the
problem of evil would still be justified.
Through another perspective the weakness in McCloskey’s claim could be the definition of evil. Evil in
the claim is subjective manifestations. Us humans have created the construct of right and wrong, good
and evil. What if no such thing exists? What if our understanding of evil is completely different from
what evil truly is? For example, when a predator kills its prey it feels no remorse, mostly because it
doesn’t believe in the construct of evil. The premise is based on the evidence and logic behind evil’s
existence, but the evil McCloskey talks about is only our perception of evil. Therefore, the argument is
weak. Why would god eliminate something we believe is evil?
Section 2 – analysis of responses against the problem of evil/theodicies:
John Hick present a response against the problem of evil by claiming that the world contains evil
because it is soul-improving and for spiritual growth not because god doesn’t exsist. Hick suggests that
the evil is for greater good and therefore it is justifying that God and evil can coexist for the better of
Paper 1
The Problem of Evil
Generations of humans have believed in the existence of God, a being that has the ultimate powerful,
omnipotent, that is all knowing, omniscient, and that is morally perfect, omnibenevolent. But in times of
suffering and loss many people doubt the existence of God. How can such a being let suffering, pain, evil
be in our world? This doubt was dwelled into by a philosopher named Henry John McCloskey. He argued
that this is the problem of evil. This argument states the if god is omniscient, they know that evil exists;
if god is omnibenevolent, they would hate evil; and if god were omnipotent, they would have the power
to erase evil from existence, hence god and evil cannot coexist. It concludes that the existence of evil in
our earth indicates that god doesn’t exist. Throughout the course of this essay, I will be assessing
whether the argument works. (In section 1, I will present weaknesses in the premises of the problem of
evil claim and possible responses against the weakness. In section two I will analyze counterclaims
against the problem of evil.)
For clarity I would lie to define the meaning of good and evil that will be inferred in this paper. Good is
the interpretation of perfect morality and evil is the opposite of molarity also include evil included by
nature, for example, natural disasters.
Section 1 - weakness in the claim:
McCloskey’s claim is based on premises on god being omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. In
my view this premises makes the argument weak because it doesn’t explore if the idea of God being
omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient might be wrong. Wouldn’t the premise collapse if God
wasn’t omnipotent or omnibenevolent or omniscient, as they wouldn’t have the power to eliminate evil
or wouldn’t have the knowledge about evil or just would care about evil’s existence. Although if God is
defined in metaphysical way, they would still have great power, knowledge and moral. Therefore, the
problem of evil would still be justified.
Through another perspective the weakness in McCloskey’s claim could be the definition of evil. Evil in
the claim is subjective manifestations. Us humans have created the construct of right and wrong, good
and evil. What if no such thing exists? What if our understanding of evil is completely different from
what evil truly is? For example, when a predator kills its prey it feels no remorse, mostly because it
doesn’t believe in the construct of evil. The premise is based on the evidence and logic behind evil’s
existence, but the evil McCloskey talks about is only our perception of evil. Therefore, the argument is
weak. Why would god eliminate something we believe is evil?
Section 2 – analysis of responses against the problem of evil/theodicies:
John Hick present a response against the problem of evil by claiming that the world contains evil
because it is soul-improving and for spiritual growth not because god doesn’t exsist. Hick suggests that
the evil is for greater good and therefore it is justifying that God and evil can coexist for the better of
