Question

8. Summarize the various theological explanations for the existence of evil. Which do you find most compelling?

Answer 1

The evidentiary problem of evil is that the problem of crucial whether or not and, if so, to what extent the existence of evil (or bound instances, kinds, quantities, or distributions of evil) constitutes proof against the existence of God, that's to mention, a being excellent in power, information and goodness. evidentiary arguments from evil arrange to show that, once we have a tendency to lost sight of any proof there can be in support of the existence of God, it becomes unlikely, if not extremely unlikely, that the planet was created ANd is ruled by an all-powerful, omniscient, and whole sensible being. Such arguments don't seem to be to be confused with logical arguments from evil, that have the a lot of bold aim of showing that, in a very world within which there's evil, it's logically impossible—and not simply unlikely—that God exists.

Theodicy as a trial to check however 3 Christian ideas work together:

God is holy.

God created everything.

Sin exists.

Three candidates:

1a. A theology can be that God had a holy motive for creating evil that didn't compromise His sanctity. 2a. Another can be God didn't create everything as sin crept in through power. 3a. a 3rd can be that sin may be a vacuum, AN absence of fine.

Clarifying the underlying conception of God is however the primary step in instructive the character of the matter of evil. To attain a a lot of complete understanding of this vexing downside, it's necessary to take away more a number of its philosophical baggage. I turn, therefore, to some necessary ideas and distinctions related to the matter of evil, starting with the ideas of "good" and "evil."

The terms "good" and "evil" are, if nothing else, notoriously troublesome to outline. Some account, however, will be given of those terms as they're used in discussions of the matter of evil. starting with the notion of evil, this is often unremarkably given a really wide extension thus on cowl everything that's negative and damaging in life. The range of evil can thus embrace such classes because the dangerous, the unjust, the immoral, and also the painful.

I think the most compelling is skeptical faith because :-

Skeptical faith defends the matter of evil by declarative that God permits AN evil to happen so as to forestall a bigger evil or to encourage a response that may result in a greater sensible. so a rape or a murder of an innocent kid is defended as having a God’s purpose that a personality's being might not comprehend, however which can result in lesser evil or bigger sensible. this is often referred to as skeptical faith as a result of the argument aims to encourage self-skepticism, either by attempting to rationalize God’s doable hidden motives, or by attempting to elucidate it as a limitation of human ability to grasp. The bigger sensible defense is a lot of usually argued in non secular studies in response to the evidentiary version of the matter of evil, whereas the power defense is typically mentioned within the context of the logical version. Most students criticize the skeptical faith defense as “devaluing the suffering” and not addressing the premise that God is all-benevolent and will be ready to stop all suffering and evil, instead of play a equalization act.

Thanks, hope it will help you.