Transcript The Problem of Evil

The Problem of Evil
An Ethical Argument Against the
Existence of God, and the Defense
from that Argument
The Problem of Evil
Somehow, evil is thought to pose a problem for belief that
God exists. It is a particular and prominent case of thinking
that belief in God is irrational (and here we are thinking of
the traditional, Sunday morning God … Saturday Sabbath …
Friday Mosque God, who is, among other things, all good,
all powerful, and all knowing).
There are many efforts in philosophical and other literature
(Milton’s Paradise Lost, Dostoevsky's The Brothers
Karamazov, others) to say just what the problem is. Among
philosophers, the effort traditionally takes the form of an
argument: The Argument from Evil.
Read excerpt of The Brothers, here (final paragraph, “Part 2”)
The Argument from Evil
Let
G = God is all good
P = God is all powerful
W = God is willing to prevent evil
A = God is able to prevent evil
E = Evil exists
Also, let
. = and
 = If, then
~ = not
Then we can construct the following argument …
1. (G.P) > (W.A)
2. (W.A) > ~E
3. E_________
4. ~(G.P)
The Argument from Evil
So, in English, the argument reads:
1. (G.P) > (W.A)
2. (W.A) > ~E
3. E_________
4. ~(G.P)
If God is all good and all powerful, then he is willing and able to
prevent evil.
If God is willing and able to prevent evil, then there isn’t any evil.
Ah, but there is evil!
Therefore, there is no all good, all powerful God.
Notice that the conclusion allows
 a God that is all good but not all powerful, or
 a God that is all powerful but not all good.
It does not allow, however,
 a God that is both all good and all powerful.
The Validity of the Argument
Could something be wrong with the form
of the argument?
No. The argument shows the antecedent
is false through 2 steps of Modus
Tollens, a valid argument form.
For example,
S>B
~B
~S
If she was Stabbed in the car,
then there would be Blood in
the car.
There is No Blood in the car.
Therefore, she was Not Stabbed
in the car.
So, if the argument is flawed, the flaw
must be in the truth of the premises.
1. (G.P) > (W.A)
2. (W.A) > ~E
3. E_________
4. ~(G.P)
Response 1
1. (G.P) > (W.A)
2. (W.A) > ~pg
3 pg_____
4. ~(G.P)
Perhaps premise 3, Evil exists, is false.
Evil, some have argued, is a mere privation of
good, following the metaphysical hierarchical
system endorsed by some ancient and
medieval philosophers.
Response 2
Theists have traditionally
responded that God gives
people free will, and it is they
who produce the evil, not God.
A.
Atheistic or agnostic
response: Good people jail
evil doers and trade freedom
for less evil. Being perfectly
good, God would do the
same or more.
 Theistic response: That’s fine for
us, but God cannot create a
moral universe jailing everyone
for every little infraction. God
must allow freedom to create a
universe with moral goodness,
and that universe contains evil
because of those free beings...
… who then can, if they so
choose, overcome evil
Response 2 (continued)
B.
Atheistic or agnostic response:
Modal Logic to the Rescue!
There is a possible world where everyone has
free will and just happens to do what is right all
the time. God should have created that world.
Since He didn’t, we must conclude there is no
all good, all powerful God.

Theistic Response: Consider two possible worlds, W
and W*. Everything is exactly the same in W and
W* except in W Kelsey Zent accepts a bribe to help
someone cheat on their Ethics quiz. Notice, if
Kelsey is free with respect to accepting or rejecting
the bribe, then whether W or W* is actual depends
on Kelsey, not God, and so it is false that God can
create any possible world, even though God is all
good and all powerful.
Alvin Plantinga
Revised Argument from Evil
So, supposing free will necessitates the possibility of moral evil, the
revised argument reads:
1. (G.P) > (W.A)
2. (W.A) > ~UE
3. UE_________
4. ~(G.P)
If God is all good and all powerful, then he is willing and able to prevent
UNNECESSARY evil.
If God is willing and able to prevent UNNECESSARY evil, then there isn’t any
UNNECESSARY evil.
Ah, but there is UNNECESSARY evil!
Therefore, there is no all good, all powerful God.
What evils are unnecessary? Well, all the “natural evil” the world
contains: earthquakes, floods, tornados, accidents of all kinds not
due to the misuse of free will.
 Those evils are not explained by free will
 Those evils God could and so should, given the argument, prevent.
Response to Revised Argument
Theists have the option of attributing natural evils
such as earthquakes, floods, tornados, etc., to the
free will activities of the devil and his minions.
A. Atheistic response:
You must be kidding.
Theistic response:
Nope. Completely serious.
It is about this time that argument is replaced by
mutual and intense narrowing of the eyes.
Alternatively, consider John Hick’s Soul-Making Theodicy
Other Arguments
The preceding is the current state of what is called “the logical”
argument from evil.
There have been efforts to make a “probabilistic” argument from evil
work.
Evil, some think, makes it improbable that God exists.
But, since
 probabilistic arguments typically require showing some frequency of
at least two events occurring together, and
 the relevant events in this context are God’s existing and evil’s existing,
 and since we never (from the atheistic standpoint) have any
knowledge of one of those events occurring (God’s existing),
 it is hard to establish any probability relation between them.
For a list of top tier articles urging probabilistic arguments from evil,
see here.