Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The logical form of the argument tries to show a logical impossibility in the coexistence of a god and evil, [2] [10] while the evidential form tries to show that given the evil in the world, it is improbable that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and a wholly good god. [3] Concerning the evidential problem, many theodicies have been proposed ...
[6] [10] In philosophy, skeptical theism is a defense of theistic or agnostic positions [11] argued to undercut a crucial premise in atheological arguments from evil, a claim that God could have no good reasons for allowing certain types of evil.
God could have created a world without the possibility of evil, but he willed to create the world in a "state of journeying" to its consummation (the time when evil will no longer exist). [75] God could have created beings without the possibility of committing sin, but he willed to create free beings, e.g., beings that have free-will and must ...
The Irenaean theodicy is a response to the evidential problem of evil which raises the problem that, if an omnipotent and omnibenevolent (all-powerful and perfectly loving) God exists, there should be no evil in the world. Evidence of evil in the world would make the existence of God improbable. [7]
Epicurus was not an atheist, although he rejected the idea of a god concerned with human affairs; followers of Epicureanism denied the idea that there was no god. While the conception of a supreme, happy and blessed god was the most popular during his time, Epicurus rejected such a notion, as he considered it too heavy a burden for a god to have to worry about all the problems in the world.
The Augustinian theodicy is a response to the evidential problem of evil, [2] which raises the concern that if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, there should be no evil in the world. Evidence of evil can call into question God's nature or his existence – he is either not omnipotent, not benevolent, or does not exist. [3] Theodicy is an ...
The recognition of evils in the world and in ourselves is the recognition that the world and ourselves, as we find them, are less than fully existent because we do not perfectly love God, the Good. Karl Barth viewed the evil of human suffering as ultimately in the "control of divine providence ". [ 89 ]
For some thinkers, the existence of evil and hell could mean that God is not perfectly good and powerful or that there is no God at all. [62] Theodicy tries to address this dilemma by reconciling an all-knowing, all-powerful, and omnibenevolent God with the existence of evil and suffering, outlining the possibility that God and evil can coexist.