Blake Clinton Y.

Dy
PHILORL A51- Prof. Luwalhati Bautista

The Evidential Problem of Evil

The Evidential Problem of Evil is a challenge to theists to reconcile their

philosophical assertions that God being a perfectly good being with the fact that
evil exists in the World. This reformulated assault on theism asserts that theism
in not only inconsistent but also it is implausible given the factual existence of evil
in the world.

The first version of the problem called the Probabilistic problem of evil
uses advanced statistical formulae to state that given the high degree of almost
mechanical order in the universe such a state had to have an vastly powerful and
intelligent force behind its construction. However the presence of gratuitous evil
works against the Philosophical deity as he is taken to be perfectly good and
hence should not allow gratuitous evil but there is still evil. However this theorys
flaw is that certain philosophers such as Nancy Cartwright and Alvin Plantinga
assert that it is impossible for the human mind to construct a theory of probability
that could conceivably objectively encompass all factors involved given the flaws
of modern probability studies.

A second version of the problem is the evidential problem of evil which

states that while evil may sometimes be justified by theism there are some cases
of evil where its occurrence is not at all warranted but even down right excessive.
It takes theism, as a hypothesis in which the theistic deity will work to prevent
meaningless and pointless evil as such its existence is logically
incomprehensible to a theist. By definition gratuitous evil can be taken as an evil
which, has not a consequent greater good in tow such as the example of the
fawn trapped in the woods who is successively brutalized by various natural
phenomena until it finally expires. However the intrinsic flaw in this assertion is
once again mans falliability in his judgement of whether an evil if gratuitous or
not. Furthermore philosophers like Wykstra invoke the God Works in Mysterious
Ways defense in that it is at his pleasure that we know of the evils good nature
a case of reasonable epistemic access. But the flaw in this is that it requires the
adoption of assumptions found in expanded theism to be valid hence it cannot be
applicable in cases where such a deity holds his counsel close to himself or if the
debate was based on restricted theism.

An argument that moved to reconcile the existence of gratuitous evil and

Gods nature was Plantingas Free Will Defense which attributed the existence of
gratuitous evil to his granting of excessive evil to man. Essentially the world is
populated by morally free creatures, which may choose between good and evil
hence the existence of either in copious amounts. However some critics believe
that if God were perfectly good he would produce creatures that are only capable
of good acts however this completely misses the point of the exercise of
Freedom as to have good one must also allow for evil, curtailing the one will also
limit the other.

This argument however while answering the question of evil perpetuated

by man does not answer for the existence of evil brought about by calamitous
phenomena such as natural disasters as they did not occur by anyones accord
or have any justifiable greater good as a result. Thus God should have
intervened to prevent them from the outset. The rebuttal to this comes from the
Natural Law Theodicy, which states that the Natural World being created by a
Perfectly Good being is hence good overall and for him to repeatedly adjust it will
denote some form of imperfection in the system and hence him.

Another set of arguments that try to justify the existence of evil are those
collectively known as the Ultimate Harmony solutions which rests on Gods
detachment from us and our inability to comprehend his works. Hence from his
point of view everything will either end well or will end according to his own
morals. However this detachment also proves to be quite horrifying as it paints a
picture of a God so alien that we would have no sure basis for right or wrong.

The punishment Theodicy believes that all evils afflicting man are a
consequence of some wrongdoing however this does not explain the amount of
evil present, what we did wrong nor does it justify any natural evils that occur.
Another Theodicy believes evil is a necessary contrast to good and to know it we
must know evil however like the punishment Theodicy it fails to comprehensively
explain evil or to justify the seemingly gratuitous amounts we experience.

Finally there is the best of all possible worlds Theodicy which states that
despite the given amount of evil this was the best that God could create. This of
course is flatly incoherent as it implies an upper limit to Gods power as well as
an inability on our part to improve upon us. Like the concept of a highest possible
integer such a belief is illogical, as there is no such thing as an ultimate.

Given these above I believe that the combination of Plantingas Free Will
defense and the Natural Law Theodicy are more than capable of justifying the
existence of evil even gratuitous evil in the world today for they both place blame
on Man himself and the System he inhabits for evil. This completely removes his
complicity in any instances of evil and keeps with his divine attribute of being
perfectly good as neither are a consequence of his action or inaction rather they
are the results of Mans interactions with himself and the system. Natural Evil or
what we believe is natural evil is simply a result of mans inability to adapt to the
system and conscious evil is mans personal choice thus in all things God is
blameless at least within the restricted theisms.