Evaluate the view that the problem of suffering shows that ideas about the nature of God are
inconsistent. (30 marks)
The problem of evil and suffering proposes the idea of whether it is logical to say that there
is an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being that presides over a universe full of evil and
suffering. God clearly holds the ability to stop this evil and suffering, so it raises the question,
is he incapable of such actions or does he simply not want to perform them to prevent
humans from pain? David Hume supports this and calls the subject the ‘rock of atheism’
because it is not logical to comment on why the God of classical theism does not intervene
and allows evil and suffering to occur daily. Anthony Flew also argues that the biggest
problem for the believer is accepting that evil and suffering is a major problem that requires
an adequate response
J.L Mackie introduced a formula called the inconsistent triad which argues the conjunction of
two entails the negotiation of the third. His triad is composed of 3 corners with ‘God is
omnibenevolent’, ‘God is omnipotent’ and ‘Evil exists’ which are all claims that religious
believers have to accept as a part of faith. He argued that if two are true then the third must
be false. For example, if God is omnipotent and evil exists, then clearly God is not
omnibenevolent. This poses a threat for the nature of God because the only two conclusions
are either that the God of classical theism doesn’t exist or evil doesn’t exist. We already
know however, that evil exists which then creates a problem for the nature of God. His
argument is strong here for the non-believers because why would you want to worship a
God that has the ability to prevent evil, but chooses not to? Whilst this triad damages the
idea of a God of classical theism by making it logically impossible for his characteristics to
exist with evil in the world, some would argue however that God is omnipotent, but only for
certain things. Aquinas said ‘God can only do all things logically possible’. This may explain
his lack of omnipotence in the face of evil, but it does not cover him from his lack of
omnibenevolence.
Multiple theodicies (the term first coined by Gottfried Leibniz) have been provided as a
solution to the problem of evil and suffering as they defend the goodness of God in the face
of the existence of evil.
Augustine first introduced his theodicy which used Genesis to show that God is not to blame
for evil and suffering. Augustine defined evil as the ‘privation of good’ and used that with his
belief that God is perfect and thus created a perfect world (Genesis 1:31) , to say that God
can’t be blamed for evil because deprivation can’t be created. His definition of evil is strong
because humans are able to apply the same logic to other things, such as, blindness is a
lack of sight. Evolution however, criticises the idea that the world was made perfect as it
states the world was put into order from chaos. He argues that evil still exists due to the Fall
in Genesis where Adam and Eve disobeyed God. They are the reason why humans suffer
and evil exists because we are ‘present in the loins of Adam’ since Aquinas’ idea of natural
order was disturbed. Some would still argue that God is to blame because if God was
omniscient, he should have known the outcome of what Adam and Eve were going to do and
the problem that free will presents. Moreover, Friedrich Schleiermacher argues how is it
possible for Adam and Eve to sin in a perfect world that was created? Surely evil can’t exist
in a perfect world so only God would have known that what was done would cause evil, so
why does he not intervene to prevent it from occurring at all? Also, if God was truly
inconsistent. (30 marks)
The problem of evil and suffering proposes the idea of whether it is logical to say that there
is an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being that presides over a universe full of evil and
suffering. God clearly holds the ability to stop this evil and suffering, so it raises the question,
is he incapable of such actions or does he simply not want to perform them to prevent
humans from pain? David Hume supports this and calls the subject the ‘rock of atheism’
because it is not logical to comment on why the God of classical theism does not intervene
and allows evil and suffering to occur daily. Anthony Flew also argues that the biggest
problem for the believer is accepting that evil and suffering is a major problem that requires
an adequate response
J.L Mackie introduced a formula called the inconsistent triad which argues the conjunction of
two entails the negotiation of the third. His triad is composed of 3 corners with ‘God is
omnibenevolent’, ‘God is omnipotent’ and ‘Evil exists’ which are all claims that religious
believers have to accept as a part of faith. He argued that if two are true then the third must
be false. For example, if God is omnipotent and evil exists, then clearly God is not
omnibenevolent. This poses a threat for the nature of God because the only two conclusions
are either that the God of classical theism doesn’t exist or evil doesn’t exist. We already
know however, that evil exists which then creates a problem for the nature of God. His
argument is strong here for the non-believers because why would you want to worship a
God that has the ability to prevent evil, but chooses not to? Whilst this triad damages the
idea of a God of classical theism by making it logically impossible for his characteristics to
exist with evil in the world, some would argue however that God is omnipotent, but only for
certain things. Aquinas said ‘God can only do all things logically possible’. This may explain
his lack of omnipotence in the face of evil, but it does not cover him from his lack of
omnibenevolence.
Multiple theodicies (the term first coined by Gottfried Leibniz) have been provided as a
solution to the problem of evil and suffering as they defend the goodness of God in the face
of the existence of evil.
Augustine first introduced his theodicy which used Genesis to show that God is not to blame
for evil and suffering. Augustine defined evil as the ‘privation of good’ and used that with his
belief that God is perfect and thus created a perfect world (Genesis 1:31) , to say that God
can’t be blamed for evil because deprivation can’t be created. His definition of evil is strong
because humans are able to apply the same logic to other things, such as, blindness is a
lack of sight. Evolution however, criticises the idea that the world was made perfect as it
states the world was put into order from chaos. He argues that evil still exists due to the Fall
in Genesis where Adam and Eve disobeyed God. They are the reason why humans suffer
and evil exists because we are ‘present in the loins of Adam’ since Aquinas’ idea of natural
order was disturbed. Some would still argue that God is to blame because if God was
omniscient, he should have known the outcome of what Adam and Eve were going to do and
the problem that free will presents. Moreover, Friedrich Schleiermacher argues how is it
possible for Adam and Eve to sin in a perfect world that was created? Surely evil can’t exist
in a perfect world so only God would have known that what was done would cause evil, so
why does he not intervene to prevent it from occurring at all? Also, if God was truly
