www.bewet.fora.pl

kah6omi4ny

The problem of evil is a venerable enough for atheism that there is actually a word for responses to it: a response to the problem of evil is known as a "theodicy." Since it is difficult to deny the logical validity of the argument, theodicies tend to simply deny the premise that there is unnecessary, undeserved suffering, or to assert that such suffering is consistent with God's perfection.
However, the free will response runs into difficulties of its own. Since the suffering caused by natural disasters or illness or other so-called "acts of God" is not directly caused by the free choices of any individual or individuals, such suffering still poses a challenge for the proponent of the free will response. Again [link widoczny dla zalogowanych], though, even if it is difficult for human beings to understand why such suffering is necessary or deserved, it is logically consistent to suppose that this is the case. Thus, some maintain the belief that even the suffering caused by natural disasters is deserved.
The argument relies on a single empirical premise: there is unnecessary, undeserved suffering. An example of such suffering might be the pain felt by an innocent child who is afflicted with cancer. This is the "evil" that the problem of evil alleges is incompatible with the existence of God.
Read on
An Omnipotent Being Cannot Exist
Evil is Necessary for Freedom of Will t
One of the more promising ways in which philosophers have attempted explain why God would permit suffering is by appealing to free will. If free will is valuable, then perhaps a world such as this one in which there are imperfect beings with free will is superior to any suffering-free world without free will. This might be so even though free will is sometimes used for evil, if the value of free will outweighs the value of preventing the evil that results from its exercise. C. S. Lewis is a prominent contemporary proponent of this style of theodicy.
For, if there is unnecessary, undeserved suffering, then surely an omniscient God would know about it and know that it was unnecessary and undeserved. If God is also perfectly good, we can infer that God would do whatever was possible to prevent or end any undeserved suffering. But, if God is omnipotent, it is within God's power to prevent or end any suffering that is not strictly necessary. It follows that if a perfect God exists, there cannot be unnecessary [link widoczny dla zalogowanych], undeserved suffering. But there is. So either God does not exist, or God is imperfect.
G. W. Leibniz, for example, famously argued that we must live in the best of all possible worlds, precisely because the world was created by a perfect God. The fact that some suffering appears to humans to be unnecessary and undeserved must, Leibniz thought, be due to their imperfect knowledge. Since human beings do not know all that God knows [link widoczny dla zalogowanych], it may very well be that it would be impossible to improve the world in the ways they imagine without making it worse overall, even though their limited perspective makes it difficult for them to comprehend exactly why. While this response to the problem of evil is coherent, it is not particularly satisfying. For while it is true that humans are not omniscient, many people find it highly implausible that the suffering of an innocent child with cancer can be explained away as necessary or deserved.
Western Christian philosophical traditions have traditionally conceived of God as the perfect creator of the universe. In particular, God has been supposed to possess the perfections of omniscience (perfect knowledge), omnipotence (perfect power), and omnibenevolence (perfect moral goodness). The problem of evil is an argument that is intended to demonstrate that there cannot be such a God.
Theodicy, or Responses to the Problem of Evil
Free Will and Evil
相关的主题文章：

Puma Outdoor Unique Grooming Gift Ide Puma Espera

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]