The argument from natural evil
The argument from natural evil, in its most basic form, states that if there is an omniGod (a being that is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good) then there would be no natural evil in the world, but because there is natural evil in the world, an omniGod does not exist. A theodicy is a form of argument that tries to deal with the problem that natural evil poses. A theodicy will offer justifications for God allowing natural evils to exist in the world. The following essay is going to look at three such theodicies, namely, Free Will theodicies, Absorption theodicies, and a form of theodicy from a Biblical perspective, and critically assess each of their attempts at justifying natural evil in the face of an omniGod.In order to understand justifications put forward by theists for the existence of natural evils in a world created by an all powerful, all loving, all good God one must first recognise the distinction between moral and natural evils. A moral evil is one that is brought about by the actions of morally free agents. Moral evils can also be produced by a failure to act under certain circumstances. (O?Hear, 1984) For example poverty may be seen as a moral evil in that it is the result of the refusal of morally free a
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Swinburnes Swinburne, , Plantinga God, God Hick, AIDS Cancer, God God, Swinburne Hicks, natural evil, natural evils, free defence, evil world, absorption theodicies, free agents, evil result, morally free, existence natural, free theodicies, morally free agents, justification natural evil, natural evils world, natural evil justified, existence natural evils,
Approximate Word count = 2880
Approximate Pages = 12 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
 |
