The Problem of Evil

• Epicurus developed the problem of evil. If god is omnipotent, he has the power to stop evil. If god is omnibenevolent, he should love us enough to stop evil. If God has all these natures, he is either not fulfilling them and therefore not a God. Or God doesn't exist.
• Mackie developed Epicurus problem of evil with his inconsistent triad. If evil exists, god can't be a good god.
• Rowe presents the problem of natural evil with his fawn analogy. A fawn is trapped in a forrest fire and dies suffering. There is no point, no lessons learnt therefore an omnibenevolent God should prevent this.
• Religious people would respond to the problem of evil with the story of Job. Job was suffering but still remained faithful to god. God showed job the universe and explained the epistemic distance. There is a divine plan and it is not about individual suffering.
• Augustine's Theodicy suggests evil and suffering is necessary. He argues Evil is not a substance to measure like Mackie does. 'God saw all he had made and saw it was good'. He uses this biblical quote to conclude everything is good, there are just higher and lower goods.
• McCabe agrees with Augustine and argues just because we know what bad looks like, for example a broken deckchair, it doesn't mean that 'badness' exists as a thing.
• Augustine developed his argument to suggest evil comes from The Fall in genesis and original sin. Humans are born imperfect with an inclination to be selfish.
• Augusting also argued for the free will defence. Human beings with free will are more valuable than robots. Free will is essential for a meaningful relationship with God that we freely choose to have.
• Kierkegaard uses the parable of the king to support the free will defence. The king (represents God) forces a peasant girl (represents human kind) to marry him. However he can never know if she truly loves him and not for his money or because he has forced her to.
• Mackie argues against the free will defence and argues the God could have provided free will but give the inclination for humans to do good. However Hick and Plantinga argue we then simply wouldn't be free since we would be like preprogrammed robots.
• Swingburne argues for the free will defence by responding to natural evil problem. He argues deaths caused naturally are necessary so we can develop predictions, scientific and geographical knowledge to aid our moral decision making.
• Ireneaus' theodicy argues God has a plan. Humans were made in God's image and uses this to argue that humans will grow into the likeness of god by experiencing bad. We have an immature soul and need suffering to produce spiritual growth. Uses the analogy of a mother. She has the power to feed the newborn real food, but it is not mature enough to receive it.
• Swinburne agrees with Iraneaus and argues a world that includes suffering is the best possible world.
• Hick's Theodicy is a development of Iraneaus. He argues suffering is soul shaping. He is a supporter of salvation, that everyone will be worthy of a place in heaven when grown to full likeness of God. He argues Epistemic distance was set by God to create a knowledge gap so humans can make their own decisions without intervention of God.
• Hick agrees with Epistemic distance as it is important for humans to develop love for god with their free will.
• Plato found a dilemma with understanding God. ' is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good? or is it morally good because it is commanded by god?
• Plato's dilemma 1: If God didn't choose what is morally good, then who did. Meaning God is not omnipotent and constrained by rules of reality.
• Plato's dilemma 2: If morality comes from God, then he also commands the bad. God is not omnibenevolent.