Philosophy Babbling, Part the First

The other day in Modern we started the theology section. I was a bit apprehensive, as class discussions on this subject tend to include an uncomfortable number of whatever the politically correct term for “idiots” is. Things went, as I told another classmate afterwards, “rather swimmingly.”

Our main point of focus for the day was THE PROBLEM OF EVIL. I will attempt to present this as clearly as possible. Please note that I am neither supporting nor denying this argument, but simply presenting it. Let’s start with a quick summary:

1) If God exists, then evil does not exist.

1a) God is all knowing (omniscient), all powerful (omnipotent), and all good (omnibenevolent).

1b) God is aware of evil, has the power to prevent/stop evil, and desires to prevent/stop evil.

1c) Therefore evil does not exist.

2) Evil exists.

3) Therefore God does not exist.

Obviously this needs some explaining. First and foremost, however, we need to understand how arguments work and the proper way to respond to them. This argument uses the Modus Tollens argument form (thought it would perhaps be more comfortable in the Reductio ad Adsurdum argument form), which only matters if you already know what that means. The important thing to note is that the structure of the argument is fine, and basically beyond attack. To argue against this, you must reject one of the premises or the conclusion. To actually have your opinion considered, you must also provide justification for such rejections.

Now: let’s start by defining the term “God.” This argument is directed only towards deities which are considered to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, et cetera). All other deities are immune to this issue.

It may also necessary to elaborate on premise 1 (if God exists, then evil does not exist) and its little sub-argument. In short, if a deity exists that really is omni-those-three-things, it must by its very nature not allow evil. This is the most commonly rejected premise.

The argument then goes on to assert that evil exists. It’s very hard to define evil, but in class we stuck with “pain and suffering,” and I’ll stick with that too. Very few people would contest this premise, but it is sometimes attempted.

The conclusion does follows naturally from the premises, meaning that if you accept both 1 and 2 as true you must also accept 3 as true.

Interested in responding to this argument? Use the comments. You should probably Google “Theodicy” first though.