Problem Of Evil

Answer : In the philosophy of religion and theology, the problem of evil is the question of how to explain evil if deity that exists is omni benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Some philosophers have claimed that the existence of such a God and of evil is logically incompatible or unlikely. Attempts to resolve the question under these contexts have historically been one of the prime concerns of theodicy. Some responses include the arguments that true free will cannot exist without the possibility of evil, that humans cannot understand God, that suffering is necessary for spiritual growth or evil is the consequence of a fallen world. One example among many of a formulation of the problem of evil is often attributed to Epicurus and may be schematized as follows:

1. If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.

This argument is of the logically valid because there are following assumption about God.

1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. 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.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

Thus it is evidently clear that the assumptions that God is omnipotent does not hold good in the wake of the fact that evils exist.

---

Answer : In the philosophy of religion and theology, the problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the existence of a God. The problem is most often discussed in the context of the personal god of the Abrahamic religions, but is also relevant to polytheistic traditions involving many gods. One example among many of a formulation of the problem of evil presented by Epicurus may be schematized as follows (this form of the argument is called ‘the inconsistent triad’):

If a perfectly good god exists, then there is no evil in the world.

There is evil in the world.

Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.

This argument is of the logically valid denying the consequent. In this case, P is “God exists” and Q is “there is no evil in the world”. Other logical forms of arguments articulating the problem follow. Most philosophical debate has focused on the first premise, questioning the statement that God is unable to coexist with evil.

God exists. (Premise)

God is omnipotent and omniscient. (Premise — or true by definition of the word “God”)

God is all-benevolent. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil.

All-benevolent beings that can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. God is opposed to all evil. God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (God has no reason not to eliminate evil.

God has no reason not to act immediately.

God will eliminate evil completely and immediately.

Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. Argument from evil natural laws and processes

A god is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-benevolent.

If a god exists, then there exist no instances of ultimately evil natural laws or processes.

The laws of predation are ultimately evil.

There are instances of the laws of predation.

Therefore, no god exists.

Inductive argument from evil

All evil in the kinds of created entities are the result of the fallibility of one or more of its creators. (Premise)

The universe is a created entity. (Premise)

The universe contains evil. (Premise)

If god created the universe, then he is fallible.

Therefore, god did not create the universe, is imperfect, or does not exist.

---

Answer : Self-realization means self-discovery in the highest sense of the term. One realizes one’s oneness with God consciously. In order to realize what realization is, we first have to love our inner Self. The second step is to love realization itself. This is the love that awakens the soul. This is the love that illumines our consciousness. Love and you will be loved. Realize and you will be fulfilled. Can we actually feel our realization coming, or does it appear spontaneously and unexpectedly? Real realization cannot dawn unexpectedly. Gradually, we come to the point where we realize God. If one is on the verge of realization, he will know that it is a matter of days or months or years. Realization is complete conscious oneness with God. Now, if one does not have a limited conscious oneness with God, how can he attain an unlimited conscious oneness with God all at once?

God-realization is infinitely higher than a mystical experience. In a mystical experience, you feel God’s presence as something very sweet and delicate, but a mystical experience is not a permanent thing. As soon as you achieve a mystical experience, you can lose it. But God-realization you cannot lose; it is permanent. Once you realize God, you never lose what you have. Evils and sufferings are the realities of our lives. We just cannot escape it. It provides us a kind of strength which helps increase the endurance in us. It helps develop an insight which enables us to think in a rational manner. We get to know what is right and what is wrong and try to go to the roots of the problem. It gives our lives a true meaning and adds value to it.

---

Answer : This statement refers to the human freedom advocated in the philosophy of existentialism. Existentialism is the twentieth century philosophy that stresses the individual’s freedom as a self-determining agent responsible for his choices and their authenticity. It holds that the notion that a person has an essential that is inherent determinative self is an illusion that existence precedes and determines essence, so that one’s self is nothing more or less than what one has become and is at any given moment, the sum of the life one has shaped to that point. Central to this idea of essence is the view that each person is free at each moment, always able to choose how to act or not to act. But each decision affects the future by limiting later choices. To see the truth about our lives is to recognize that the human condition is absurd because our existence has no meaning other than the fact itself.

The individual must create his own meaningful personal morality. The person of good faith, despite the lonely anguish of attempting to achieve authenticity, does not withdraw from this effort but is fully engaged in it. The crucial concept in his diagnosis is that of self-deception or ‘bad faith’. Bad faith is the attempt to escape anguish by pretending to ourselves that we are not free. We try to convince ourselves that our attitudes and actions are determined by our character, our situation, our role in life, or anything other than ourselves. Sartre gives two famous examples of bad faith. He pictures a girl sitting with a man who she knows very well would like to seduce her. But when he takes her hand, she tries to avoid the painful necessity of a decision to accept or reject him, by pretending not to notice, leaving her hand in his as if she were not aware of it. She pretends to herself that she is a passive object, a thing, rather than what she really is, a conscious being who is free. The second illustration of the cafe waiter who is doing his job just a little too keenly; he is obviously ‘acting the part’. If there is bad faith here, it is that he is trying to identify himself completely with the role of waiter, to pretend that this particular role determines his every action and attitude. Whereas the truth is that he has chosen to take on the job, and is free to give it up at any time. He is not essentially a waiter, for no man is essentially anything? He can be anything if he wishes so and tries to be like that.

---

Answer : Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence are attributes which solely belong to God. God must be, to be God, each of these and all of these at the same time. All powerful with all knowledge and everywhere at the same time can only belong to God. None of the attributes has God taken to Him; all of His perfection is what God is. If but one attribute were found missing from God, God (as we perceive him to be) would not be. God is the total of perfection. If any part were missing, perfection would be deficient. This is where the problem of evil comes in. The problem of evil is the most serious problem in the world. It is also the one serious objection to the existence of God.

When Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote his great Summa Theologica, he could find only two objections to the existence of God, even though he tried to list at least three objections to every one of the thousands of theses he tried to prove in that great work. One of the two objections is the apparent ability of natural science to explain everything in our experience without God; and the other is the problem of evil. More people have abandoned their faith because of the problem of evil than for any other reason. It is certainly the greatest test of faith, the greatest temptation to unbelief. And it’s not just an intellectual objection. We feel it. We live it.

The problem can be stated very simply: If God is so good, why is his world so bad? If an all-good, all-wise, all-loving, all-just, and all-powerful God is running the show, why does he seem to be doing such a miserable job of it? Why do bad things happen to good people? The unbeliever who asks that question is usually feeling resentment toward and rebellion against God, not just lacking evidence for his existence.

There are four parts to the solution to the problem of evil. First, evil is not a thing, an entity, a being. All beings are either the Creator or creatures created by the Creator. But every thing God created is good, according to Genesis. We naturally tend to picture evil as a thing—a black cloud, or a dangerous storm, or a grimacing face, or dirt. But these pictures mislead us. If God is the Creator of all things and evil is a thing, then God is the Creator of evil, and he is to blame for its existence. No, evil is not a thing but a wrong choice, or the damage done by a wrong choice. Evil is no more a positive thing than blindness is. But it is just as real. It is not a thing, but it is not an illusion.

Second, the origin of evil is not the Creator but the creature’s freely choosing sin and selfishness. Take away all sin and selfishness and you would have heaven on earth. Even the remaining physical evils would no longer rankle and embitter us. Saints endure and even embrace suffering and death as lovers embrace heroic challenges. But they do not embrace sin. Furthermore, the cause of physical evil is spiritual evil. The cause of suffering is sin. After Genesis tells the story of the good God creating a good world, it next answers the obvious question “Where did evil come from then?” the answer given is by the story of the fall of mankind. How are we to understand this? How can spiritual evil (sin) cause physical evil (suffering and death)? God is the source of all life and joy.

Therefore, when the human soul rebels against God, it loses its life and joy. Now a human being is body as well as soul. We are single creatures, not double: we are not even body and soul as much as we are embodied soul. So the body must share in the soul’s inevitable punishment, a punishment as natural and unavoidable as broken bones from jumping off a cliff or a sick stomach from eating rotten food rather than a punishment as artificial and external as a grade for a course or a slap on the hands for taking the cookies.

If the origin of evil is free will, and God is the origin of free will, isn’t God then the origin of evil? Only as parents are the origin of the misdeeds their children commit by being the origin of their children. The all-powerful God gave us a share in his power to choose freely. Would we prefer he had not and had made us robots rather than human beings?

A third part of the solution to the problem of evil is the most important part: how to resolve the problem in practice, not just in theory; in life, not just in thought. Although evil is a serious problem for thought (for it seems to disprove the existence of God), it is even more of a problem in life (for it is the real exclusion of God). Finally, what about the philosophical problem? It is not logically contradictory to say an all-powerful and all-loving God tolerates so much evil when he could eradicate it? Why do bad things happen to good people? The question makes three questionable assumptions.

First, who’s to say we are good people? The question should be not “Why do bad things happen to good people?” but “Why do good things happen to bad people?” Second, who’s to say suffering is all bad? Life without it would produce spoiled brats and tyrants, not joyful saints. Third, who’s to say we have to know all God’s reasons? Who ever promised us all the answers? Animals can’t understand much about us; why should we be able to understand everything about God? The obvious point of the Book of Job, the world’s greatest exploration of the problem of evil, is that we just don’t know what God is up to.

What a hard lesson to learn: Lesson One, that we are ignorant, that we are infants! No wonder Socrates was declared by the Delphic oracle to be the wisest man in the world. He interpreted that declaration to mean that he alone knew that he did not have wisdom, and that was true wisdom for man. The worst aspect of the problem of evil is eternal evil, hell. Does hell not contradict a loving and omnipotent God? No, for hell is the consequence of free will. We freely choose hell for ourselves; God does not cast anyone into hell against his will. If a creature is really free to say yes or no to the Creator’s offer of love and spiritual marriage, then it must be possible for the creature to say no. And that is what hell is, essentially. Free will, in turn, was created out of God’s love. Therefore hell is a result of God’s love. Everything is.

---

Answer : This argument has been given by the theist to prove that God’s intention is always good even if there is evil in the universe. God’s aim when he created the world was to make humans flawless, in his likeness (as in Genesis). Genuine human perfection cannot be ready-made but must develop through free choice. Since God had to give us free choice, he had to give us the potential to disobey him. There would be no such potential if there were never any possibility of evil. If humans were made ready-perfected, and if God policed his world continually, there would be no free will. Therefore, the natural order had to be designed with the possibility of causing harm (natural evil), humans had to be imperfect (moral evil), and God had to stand back from his creation (not police it).

Otherwise humans could not develop. Humans used their freedom to disobey God, causing suffering. God cannot compromise our freedom by removing evil. Eventually, however, evil & suffering will be overcome and everyone will develop into God’s likeness, living in glory in heaven. This justifies temporary evil. Criticisms of thistheodicy include the denial of free will; the assumption that God exists in order to prove that he exists despite the existence of evil (begging the question fallacy); and the denial of the existence of evil itself (e.g. Nietzsche, Ayer). In On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine of Hippo also argued that Epicurus had ignored the potential benefits of suffering in the world. Some argue that God allows evil to exist so that humans can have free will. The argument runs as follows: Free will requires the potential to do anything one chooses. Thus, free will requires the potential to do evil. Thus, removing the potential to do evil would remove free will. Having concluded that potential for evil is a prerequisite for free will, they argue that favoring the presence of free will over an absence of evil is consistent with the concept of a powerful, benevolent god.

---

Answer : The essence of the statement is that there is a super power which commands our actions. Broadly, then, the assertion that morality would never have existed for human beings without belief in a God or without a revelation from God is equal to saying that man alone should have never discovered the value of being honest and truthful or loyal. He would not even have had such terms as good and bad in his vocabulary, for the use of those words implies moral judgment, and there would have been no such thing at least, so we are told. Some are of opinion that it is so glaringly absurd to say that without religion man would not know right from wrong, that it is given a very slight covering in the expression, “destroy religion and you remove all moral restraints”. Restraints! That expression is indeed a revelation. From this point of view, what are called moral rules, are treated much as one may treat the regulation. The order is submitted to because of “sanctions” that may be applied if you do not. Belief that a deity can do absolutely anything can be thought to yield certain logical paradoxes. A simple example goes as follows: Can a deity create a rock so heavy that even the deity itself cannot lift it? If so, then the rock can’t be lifted, limiting the deity’s power. But if not, then the deity is still not omnipotent.

This question cannot be answered using formal logic due to its self-referential nature. Augustine, in his City of God, argued that a deity could not do anything that would make it non-omnipotent. For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent. Thus Augustine argued that a deity could not do anything or create any situation that would in effect limit the omnipotence of it. Others have argued that (alluding to C.S. Lewis’ argument above), that when talking about omnipotence, referencing “a rock so heavy that a deity cannot lift it” is nonsense just as much as referencing “a square circle.” So asking “Can a deity create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?” is just as much nonsense as asking “Can a deity draw a square circle?” Therefore the question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless. Another such response is that by definition an omnipotent being is set free from the grip of what is logically possible. An omnipotent being therefore would not be subject to what is logically possible. In this sense, an omnipotent being could create a rock that even it could not lift, and then lift it. An omnipotent being could also not exist and exist at the same time at any time. A being with knowledge of the concept of omnipotence could then see that omnipotence is by no way limited by logic.

According to the Hindu philosophy the essence of God or Brahman can never be understood or known since Brahman is beyond both existence and non-existence, transcending and including time, causation and space, and thus can never be known in the same material sense as one traditionally ‘understands’ a given concept or object. So presuming there is a god-like entity consciously taking actions, we cannot comprehend the limits of a deity’s powers.

---

Answer : First, it’s important to distinguish between two kinds of evil: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil results from the actions of free creatures. Murder and theft are examples. Natural evil results from natural processes such as earthquakes and floods. Of course, sometimes the two are intermingled, such as when flooding results in loss of human life due to poor planning or shoddy construction of buildings. It’s also important to identify two aspects of the problem of evil and suffering.

First, there is the philosophical or apologetic aspect. This is the problem of evil approached from the standpoint of the skeptic who challenges the possibility or probability that a God exists who would allow such suffering. In meeting this apologetic challenge we must utilize the tools of reason and evidence in “giving a reason for the hope within us. Second is the religious or emotional aspect of the problem of evil. This is the problem of evil approached from the standpoint of the believer whose faith in God is severely tested by trial. How can we love and worship God when He allows us to suffer in these ways? In meeting the religious/emotional challenge we must appeal to the truth revealed by God in Scripture. We will address both aspects of the problem of evil in this essay. It’s also helpful to distinguish between two types of the philosophical or apologetic aspect of the problem of evil. The first is the logical challenge to belief in God. This challenge says it is irrational and hence impossible to believe in the existence of a good and powerful God on the basis of the existence of evil in the world. The logical challenge is usually posed in the form of a statement such as this:

• A good God would destroy evil.
• An all powerful God could destroy evil.
• Evil is not destroyed.
• Therefore, there cannot possibly be such a good and powerful God.

It is logically impossible to believe that both evil and a good and powerful God exist in the same reality, for such a God certainly could and would destroy evil. On the other hand, the evidential challenge contends that while it may be rationally possible to believe such a God exists, it is highly improbable or unlikely that He does. We have evidence of so much evil that is seemingly pointless and of such horrendous intensity. For what valid reason would a good and powerful God allow the amount and kinds of evil which we see around us?

These issues are of an extremely important nature as we seek to defend our belief in God. We have noted that there are two aspects of the problem of evil: the philosophical or apologetic, and the religious or emotional aspect. We also noted that within the philosophical aspect there are two types of challenges to faith in God: the logical and the evidential. David Hume, the eighteenth century philosopher, stated the logical problem of evil when he inquired about God, “Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”. When the skeptic challenges belief in God on the basis of the logical problem of evil, he is suggesting that it is irrational or logically impossible to believe in the existence of both a good and all powerful God and in the reality of evil and suffering. Such a God would not possibly allow evil to exist.

The key to the resolution of this apparent conflict is to recognize that when we say God is all powerful, we do not imply that He is capable of doing anything imaginable. True, Scripture states that “with God all things are possible”. But Scripture also states that there are some things God cannot do. For instance, God cannot lie. Neither can He be tempted to sin, nor can He tempt others to sin. In other words, He cannot do anything that is “out of character” for a righteous God. Neither can He do anything that is out of character for a rational being in a rational world. Certainly even God cannot “undo the past,” or create a square triangle, or make what is false true. He cannot do what is irrational or absurd. And it is on this basis that we conclude that God could not eliminate evil without at the same time rendering it impossible to accomplish other goals which are important to Him.

Certainly, for God to create beings in his own image, which are capable of sustaining a personal relationship with Him, they must be beings who are capable of freely loving Him and following his will without coercion. Love or obedience on any other basis would not be love or obedience at all, but mere compliance. But creatures that are free to love God must also be free to hate or ignore Him. Creatures that are free to follow His must also be free to reject it. And when people act in ways outside the will of God, great evil and suffering is the ultimate result. This line of thinking is known as the “free will defense” concerning the problem of evil. But what about natural evil—evil resulting from natural processes such as earthquakes, floods and diseases?

Here it is important first to recognize that we live in a fallen world, and that we are subject to natural disasters that would not have occurred had man not chosen to rebel against God. Even so, it is difficult to imagine how we could function as free creatures in a world much different than our own—a world in which consistent natural processes allow us to predict with some certainty the consequences of our choices and actions. Take the law of gravity, for instance. This is a natural process without which we could not possibly function as human beings, yet under some circumstances it is also capable of resulting in great harm. Certainly, God is capable of destroying evil—but not without destroying human freedom, or a world in which free creatures can function. And most agree that this line of reasoning does successfully respond to the challenge of the logical problem of evil.

---

Answer : If we grant the theists victory of the philosophical question “Does God exist?” we inevitably come to the question, “Does the God exist?” This seems a valid question. For if the ontological proof is truly correct, then it implies that some being “which nothing greater can be conceived of” truly exists. A skeptic will ask what these “great-making” qualities are that make God the being “which nothing greater can be conceived”. In answer to this, believers posit a handful of divine properties that make God “great”. The following list of properties attributed to god includes: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omni-benevolent, Impassable Infinitely, Just Infinitely Merciful, Eternal Knowable by Nature, Omni-present, absolutely Perfect, Absolute Immutability and The First Efficient Cause.

Now let us analyze the properties attributed to God and see if they are at least philosophically sound. There are two major difficulties with an all-powerful being. The first problem has to do with the extent of God’s power. Does omnipotence allow God to redefine logic or break the laws of logic? Does God’s omnipotence mean that he is capable of sin? The second major difficulty is the apparent conflict between God’s power and his Omni-benevolence. Namely, if an all-good, all-powerful God exists, why does evil exist in the world he created? These questions are real problems related to evil. That many of the problems with God’s omnipotence proceed from conflicts with his other “great-making” qualities. One possible solution to some of these conflicts is to abandon one of the properties which conflict. Another possible solution is to abandon God entirely.

Problem 1: The problem of the scope of God’s omnipotence can be related to the Initial Definition of Omnipotence: God can do anything. The following question is often posed by theists to bring about a conflict with the idea of omnipotence. The question often posed is, “Can God create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?” This question creates a dilemma in our initial definition of omnipotence. For if God can do anything then that means he must be able to create a rock he can’t lift (even if it’s infinitely heavy). Yet, if this were true then he would not be able to lift the rock; so we must conclude that God is not omnipotent.

Omnipotence means a person X can do anything. Person X can make an object heavier and heavier by way of omnipotent power. Because Person X is omnipotent, X should be able to make a rock so heavy X can’t lift it.If Person X does not have the power to lift the rock this conflicts with omnipotence. Person X is not omnipotent. Against this argument it is said that suppose a Person X exists and is purportedly omnipotent.Omnipotent beings must be able to do A (create rocks) Omnipotent beings must be able to do B (lift rocks). X must be able to do A such that B is not possible otherwise X is not omnipotent. We can the logical conflict here? Our skeptical argument asserts that God must be able to do A and B or he is not omnipotent (which makes logical sense) AND God must be able to do A in such a way that B is not possible or God is not omnipotent. The argument sets God’s omnipotence up to fail by stating that in order to be omnipotent he must be able to do three things:

• X must do A
• X must do B
• X must do A such that B is not possible
• There is no logical way God can “do B” and “not do B” at the same time!

Now if evil cannot proceed from the combined qualities of omnipotence and omni-benevolence we seem to be in a real dilemma. Namely, how can an all-good and all-powerful God allow evil to exist in the world? This problem is called the problem of evil; and it is a very real problem for theists. The classical atheist argument against the existence of God goes something like this:

• Evil exists in the world
• God is all-good and all-powerful and all-knowing
• An all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God should only create a world of total goodness

Yet premise 1 is in conflict with premise 3 so we must conclude that an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God does not exist. One way out of the problem is to deny premise 1. A few philosophers have actually done this (I think the Buddhists probably see reality in this manner), but this view does that seem to be that of others. A second way to solve the problem is to deny premise 2. One could accept that God is not all-good or all-powerful or all-knowing. For example, a God which is not all-good is not bound by his nature to create only good; he could create both good and evil.

A third way the proof can be defeated is to deny premise 3 or show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. St. Augustine gives the traditional response to the problem of evil: “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.” Though logically the existence of evil in creation incompatible with an all-good and all-powerful God.Though many theists believe that evil is not a tangible thing created by a good God; instead it is an intangible lack of goodness caused by the abuse of free will of Satan. Ultimately, the problem of evil loses its force because P1 (premise one of the proof against God’s existence) is false. Evil is not a tangible reality within the universe; therefore we acknowledge that God did create a perfect universe. However, the corruptions of the good universe entered it through the free choice of Satan. Thus, the loss of goodness within creation cannot be ultimately attributed to the work of God. We can be comforted with the knowledge that nothing can ultimately contest the power of God; eventually in the fullness of time, good will triumph over evil.

---

Answer : The problem of evil (or argument from evil) is the problem of reconciling the existence of the evil in the world with the existence of an omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful) and perfectly good God. The argument from evil is the atheistic argument that the existence of such evil cannot be reconciled with, and so disproves, the existence of such a God. This discussion will distinguish between four different forms of the argument from evil: the argument from imperfection, the argument from natural evil, the argument from moral evil, and the argument from unbelief. Though each of these arguments presents a different problem for the theist to explain, a different reason for believing that atheism is true, each shares a common form. The four arguments are, of course, mutually consistent, and so can be and often are proposed together.

Each of the four arguments from evil begins with the claim that if God existed then the world would reach a certain standard. The standard anticipated differs between the different forms of the argument, each argument claiming that the evil named in its title—imperfection, natural evil, moral evil and unbelief respectively—would not exist in a world created and sustained by God. In each of the arguments this claim is supported by an appeal to God’s nature. If God exists, it is said, and then he is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent. As such, it is suggested, God would know how to bring it about that the world met the anticipated standard, would be able to bring it about that that the universe met the anticipated standard, and would want to bring it about that the universe met the anticipated standard. If God knew how to, were able to, and wanted to do a thing, though, then surely he would do that thing. If God existed, then, it seems that he would bring it about that the world met the standard anticipated by the proponent of the argument from evil. The next step in each of the arguments from evil is the claim that the world does indeed contain the evil named, that the world does not reach the standard that it would reach if God existed. The four arguments thus claim respectively that the universe is imperfect, that it contains natural evil, that it contains moral evil, and that it contains unbelief. Each argument concludes from its respective claim that God does not exist. The argument from evil can, then, be represented as having the following structure:

The Argument from Evil

• If God exists then he is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.
• If God were omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good then the world would not contain evil.
• The world contains evil.

Therefore:

• It is not the case that God exists.

Some attempts to solve the problem of evil are general, applying equally to all of its forms. It is sometimes argued, for instance, that God is not morally good, and so that the first premise of the argument from evil is false. The third premise has also been questioned; there are some that deny that evil exists. If either of these solutions is successful, then all forms of the argument from evil fail. Most attempts to solve the problem of evil, however, question the second premise of a specific form of the argument. A discussion of each of the four forms of the argument—the argument from imperfection, the argument from natural evil, the argument from moral evil, and the argument from unbelief—can be found by following the appropriate link.

• You are here: God Problem Of Evil
• Problem of Evil: The Philosophical Challenge

The “Problem of Evil” is a philosophical stumbling block for many people. Empirical evidence for creation, and therefore a Creator, is overwhelming. Atheists have tried unsuccessfully to identify a mechanism by which the world could have made itself. 20th century science has proved with certainty that the world is not eternal — the universe had a beginning. The only feasible option to explain the origin of the universe (space, time, matter, energy, natural law, etc.) is a Transcendent Creator. DNA is a compelling example of the incredible design that permeates all life - the digital code that organizes organic material into complex organisms. The invisible language convention that interprets the DNA code is another dramatic evidence for an Intelligent Designer. It is here that an atheist, confronted with the evidence against random evolutionary theory, attacks Special Creation on philosophical grounds.

One of the primary questions atheists pose is, “If God is real, and God created everything, why did He create evil?” Hindu answers to the problem of evil are different from most answers offered in Western philosophy, partly because the problem of evil within Hindu thought is differently structured than Western traditions, mainly Abraham traditions. In the Hindu tradition the problem of evil is phrased as the Problem of Injustice. This problem can be considered in the following manner:

God is omnipotent, omniscient, and just. Yet injustice is observed to persist in the world. How is this possible? In the Advaita school of Vedanta, this problem is dealt with in detail by Shankara in his commentary on the Brahma Sutras. Brahma Sutra: “No partiality and cruelty (can be charged against God) because of (His) taking other factors into consideration.” Shankara’s commentary explains that God cannot be charged with partiality or cruelty (i.e. injustice) on account of his taking the factors of virtuous and vicious actions (Karma) performed by an individual in previous lives. If an individual experiences pleasure or pain in this life, it is due to virtuous or vicious action (Karma) done by that individual in a past life. Brahma Sutra: “If it be argued that it is not possible (to take Karma into consideration in the beginning), since the fruits of work remain still undifferentiated, then we say, no, since the transmigration state has no beginning.”

---

Answer : There are many similarities and difference Buddhism and Jainism. Both do not entail and godly figures though the later Buddhist sects introduced some Godly figure. In Buddhism nirvana is freedom the cycle of rebirth, when a being turns into a state of non- being or Sunya, looses its identity and become nothing. Nirvana is a state of Moksha whereas Being losses its identity and is free from the cycle of birth and death. The path of liberation in Buddhism goes through good conduct and good deeds as mentioned in Eightfold path, four noble truth, five perceptions and moral conducts. Similarly, the path of liberation is Jainism is to follow right perceptions and moral conducts.

Similarly, the path of liberation in Jainism is to follow right perception, right knowledge and right conduct. Both Buddhism and Jainism emphasizes on the practice of meditation and other form of yoga to concentrate on inner self. When we take differences between the two into account some differences are quiet obvious. Buddhism believes in the universality of Karma which is a result of one’s action. Jainism also believes in the universality of Karma and its effect on human beings. But unlike Buddhism, Karma, according to Jainism, is not mere effect of one’s actions but a real substance that flows into each individual body or jiva.

According to Buddhism, soul is an individuality that does exist in plants and animals but not in non living things. According to Jainism soul is present in every animate and inanimate object of the universe including its elements earth water, wine, fire and air. After Nirvana there is no soul, but the individuality of an individual that passes into nothingness which is beyond description. In Jainism after Nirvana, the soul continues to remain as an individual soul, but in the highest state of purity and enlighten. Differences also lie in their spread. Buddhism disappeared from the Indian soil but Jainism survived in India.

---

Answer : The religious problems in India have become almost chronic. The reason is very simple and obvious. There are diverse believes and sects in India. An individual having faith in a particular religion keeps little or no space for other religion, belief or sects. They are completely devoted and committed to their own religion considering it the real path to liberation. This very attitude has given rise to communal tensions refuting in even violence and spread of hatred. On the other hand philosophy being the knowledge of second order has a great task to do. It takes into account the religious issues impartially and dispenses these issues in religious perspective. This is what is known as the philosophy of religion. Its discussion comprises questions arising from the religion. This has primarily consisted in the fundamental beliefs and concepts from one or another religious tradition. Major issues of concern in the philosophy of religion include apart from other things is related to conclude and find out a common platform for all religious beliefs and practices. The religious discussions are highly diverse.

Different religions give rise to difference issues depending for example on whether the religion is centered on faith in a personal deity. The philosophizing that is done will reflect the thinker’s conception of the philosophical task. Here religious perspectives attempt to show the fallacy of the apparent irrelevance of God in history. This task is not so easy and here also philosophers do not think and work in the same way as there are diverse views also in the critical evaluation of the concepts regarding religion. Thus it is true to say that the philosophical problems in India are identical with religious problems and so the task ahead for the philosophers of today is challenging.

---