Corollaries Problem of evil

problem of good

several philosophers have argued there exists problem of evil theists believe in omniscient, omnipotent , omnibenevolent being, there problem of believes in omniscient, omnipotent, , omnimalevolent (or evil) being. appears defenses , theodicies might allow theist resist problem of evil can inverted , used defend belief in omnimalevolent being, suggests should draw similar conclusions success of these defensive strategies. in case, theist appears face dilemma: either accept both sets of responses equally bad, , theist not have adequate response problem of evil; or accept both sets of responses equally good, , commit existence of omnipotent, omniscient, , omnimalevolent being plausible.

critics have noted theodicies , defenses addressed logical problem of evil. such, intended demonstrate possible evil can co-exist omniscient, omnipotent , omnibenevolent being. since relevant parallel commitment can co-exist omniscient, omnipotent , omnimalevolent being, not plausible should so, theist responding problem of evil need not committing himself think false. reply, however, leaves evidential problem of evil untouched.

morality

another general criticism though theodicy may harmonize god existence of evil, @ cost of nullifying morality. because theodicies assume whatever evil there exists because required sake of greater good. if evil necessary because secures greater good, appears humans have no duty prevent it, in doing prevent greater evil required. worse, seems action can rationalized, if 1 succeeds in performing it, god has permitted it, , must greater good. line of thought 1 may conclude that, these conclusions violate our basic moral intuitions, no greater theodicy true, , god not exist. alternatively, 1 may point out greater theodicies lead see every conceivable state of affairs compatible existence of god, , in case notion of god s goodness rendered meaningless.