God’s existence in light of the apparent imperfections of the world. God consistent with the existence good evil and the best of all possible worlds pdf evil” or suffering in the world. God’s existence is also plausible. Hick developed, based on the thinking of St.
The problem was also analyzed by pre-modern theologians and philosophers in the Islamic world. God cannot be meaningfully justified. God and evil is not logically impossible, and that free will further explains the existence of evil without threatening the existence of God. As defined by Alvin Plantinga, theodicy is the “answer to the question of why God permits evil”. Thus, theodicy literally means “justifying God”. As a response to the problem of evil, a theodicy is distinct from a defence. A defence attempts to demonstrate that the occurrence of evil does not contradict God’s existence, but it does not propose that rational beings are able to understand why God permits evil.
A theodicy seeks to show that it is reasonable to believe in God despite evidence of evil in the world and offers a framework which can account for why evil exists. God, and seeks to demonstrate that God’s existence remains probable after the problem of evil is posed by giving a justification for God’s permitting evil to happen. It is important to note that there are at least two concepts of evil: a broad concept and a narrow concept. Natural evils are bad states of affairs which do not result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents. Hurricanes and toothaches are examples of natural evils. By contrast, moral evils do result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents. Murder and lying are examples of moral evils.
Marxism, “selectively elaborating Hegel,” defines evil in terms of its effect. Philosopher John Kekes says the effect of evil must include actual harm “that ‘interferes with the functioning of a person as a full-fledged agent. Some contemporary philosophers argue a focus on the effects of evil is inadequate as a definition since evil can observe without actively causing the harm, and it is still evil. Writers in this tradition saw things as belonging to ‘forms’ and evil as an absence of being a good example of their form: as a deficit of goodness where goodness ought to have been present. Denis O’Brien, who say evil is a privation. The Muslim also provides an evaluative definition of evil saying it is the result of the world not being fully Muslim.
When evil is restricted to actions that follow from these sorts of motivations, theorists sometimes say that their subject is pure, radical, diabolical, or monstrous evil. This suggests that their discussion is restricted to a type, or form, of evil and not to evil per se. Some theorists define evil by what emotions are connected to it. Buddhism defines evil as behavior resulting from a failure to emotionally detach from the world.