Does the Problem of Evil disprove the
existence of God?
Statement of Intent: In this essay I will argue that whilst the logical problem of evil fails to disprove the
existence of God, the evidential problem does make it unlikely for God to exist especially regarding the
existence of natural evil. I will be considering the successes of Plantiga’s Free Will defence as well as
Midgley’s but the failure of Hick’s Soul Making Theodicy and thus it is the distribution and extent of evil
then disproves the existence of God.
RICE 1:
R: Plantiga’s Free Will Defence. A world containing creatures that are significantly free is better than a
world containing no free creatures. God can create significantly free creatures. To be significantly free is
to be capable of both moral good and moral evil. If signicantly free creature could only do what is right
then they are not free. So God can only eliminate the moral evil done by significantly free creatures by
eliminating the greater good of significantly
I: Only account for moral evil and says nothing about natural evil which is a part of problem of evil. Why is
their natural evil especially if God would have the power to stop earthquakes etc - logical problem remains
C: It is possible that Satan exists ad that natural evil is the effects of his actions so natural evil is a form or
consequence of moral evil. And so similar to why we cant eliminate moral evil, God can only eliminate
natural evil by eliminating the greater good of significant free creatures.
E: This sounds super duper unlikely, which seems like an objection but the key thing to consider is that
this reply is designed to simply show God and evil are logically compatible, just show that it is a possibility
that it is the case rather then what is and so the logical problem is solved
RICE 2:
R: Midgley’s Concept of Evil is the most convincing and adds much more nuanced to how we understand
evil and to the actual problem itself. With the problem of evil we tend to blame God for allowing us to do
evil but it misses the very point - humans are the ones doing evil. We look at why humans do evil from a
very simplistic perspective when in reality human choices and casual interaction are complex and
interlinked. Consider aggression. Aggression doesn't mean evil because sometimes aggression can be
used in competitions, self defence, justice which is good. Evil is a negative theses - the failure to be good.
Things we consider evil are simply the deficit of some virtue. And thus to be evil i to reject the positive
force of good will and giving into the temptation of vices. And thus it is due to human free will rather then
the fault of God in which evil exists.
I: Do we have free will? You cannot have both free will and determinism. If our choices have causes (eg
human nature, environment, upbringing) as we would suggest then determinism is true. Therefore each
choice we make has a particular set of causes and takes place in a particular situation. Therefore given
these causes and situations we choice is possible other then the choice we made. If we couldn't have
made any other choice then we do not have free will. This is quite a crucial issue. If we do not have free
will well then we can’t say it is the humans fault for evil and also it damages Plantiga’s argument as it relies
on us having free will to show that it is better then no evil in the world and so if there is no such free will
then there is no comparison to be made. OH NO
C: To think determinism is incompatible with free will is to treat determinism as fatalism - the view that
everything is fate and so human action is obsolete because whatever you do the outcome will be the
same. Free will simply not being forced to act by external factors, we do not make actions randomly.
People choose on the basis of life experience and character that is expected and is completely normal
Does the Problem of Evil disprove the existence of God? 1
existence of God?
Statement of Intent: In this essay I will argue that whilst the logical problem of evil fails to disprove the
existence of God, the evidential problem does make it unlikely for God to exist especially regarding the
existence of natural evil. I will be considering the successes of Plantiga’s Free Will defence as well as
Midgley’s but the failure of Hick’s Soul Making Theodicy and thus it is the distribution and extent of evil
then disproves the existence of God.
RICE 1:
R: Plantiga’s Free Will Defence. A world containing creatures that are significantly free is better than a
world containing no free creatures. God can create significantly free creatures. To be significantly free is
to be capable of both moral good and moral evil. If signicantly free creature could only do what is right
then they are not free. So God can only eliminate the moral evil done by significantly free creatures by
eliminating the greater good of significantly
I: Only account for moral evil and says nothing about natural evil which is a part of problem of evil. Why is
their natural evil especially if God would have the power to stop earthquakes etc - logical problem remains
C: It is possible that Satan exists ad that natural evil is the effects of his actions so natural evil is a form or
consequence of moral evil. And so similar to why we cant eliminate moral evil, God can only eliminate
natural evil by eliminating the greater good of significant free creatures.
E: This sounds super duper unlikely, which seems like an objection but the key thing to consider is that
this reply is designed to simply show God and evil are logically compatible, just show that it is a possibility
that it is the case rather then what is and so the logical problem is solved
RICE 2:
R: Midgley’s Concept of Evil is the most convincing and adds much more nuanced to how we understand
evil and to the actual problem itself. With the problem of evil we tend to blame God for allowing us to do
evil but it misses the very point - humans are the ones doing evil. We look at why humans do evil from a
very simplistic perspective when in reality human choices and casual interaction are complex and
interlinked. Consider aggression. Aggression doesn't mean evil because sometimes aggression can be
used in competitions, self defence, justice which is good. Evil is a negative theses - the failure to be good.
Things we consider evil are simply the deficit of some virtue. And thus to be evil i to reject the positive
force of good will and giving into the temptation of vices. And thus it is due to human free will rather then
the fault of God in which evil exists.
I: Do we have free will? You cannot have both free will and determinism. If our choices have causes (eg
human nature, environment, upbringing) as we would suggest then determinism is true. Therefore each
choice we make has a particular set of causes and takes place in a particular situation. Therefore given
these causes and situations we choice is possible other then the choice we made. If we couldn't have
made any other choice then we do not have free will. This is quite a crucial issue. If we do not have free
will well then we can’t say it is the humans fault for evil and also it damages Plantiga’s argument as it relies
on us having free will to show that it is better then no evil in the world and so if there is no such free will
then there is no comparison to be made. OH NO
C: To think determinism is incompatible with free will is to treat determinism as fatalism - the view that
everything is fate and so human action is obsolete because whatever you do the outcome will be the
same. Free will simply not being forced to act by external factors, we do not make actions randomly.
People choose on the basis of life experience and character that is expected and is completely normal
Does the Problem of Evil disprove the existence of God? 1
