The problem of evil arises from a set of claims that are all alleged to be true. These claims are consistent with the belief that God is the most powerful being. The deity simultaneously allows evil to continue. Nevertheless, the problem of evil may simply resolved. In this paper I will argue that the problem of moral and natural evil may be solved by the freewill defense.
The problem of evil may be specifically identified. Answers to a specific questions are sought through the problem of evil. The question is how can the simultaneous existence of evil and any given deity be explained? (Stump, 2009). The deity may be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (Stump, 2009).In other words, the deity has unlimited power, unlimited knowledge, and is completely good.
[...] Several resolutions to the problem of evil are rendered. One solution rendered is to give up one of the divine properties. Another version of this solution also seeks to surrender multiple divine properties. Another solution is presented through the freewill defense. An additional solution includes the conclusion that there is no God. The validity of each solution may be rated by the person that is asked to present a solution. One complete solution to the problem of evil may be rendered. [...]
[...] Once this occurs, each possible solution must be identified. After observing each possible solution I have concluded that the freewill defense may provide the best combat to the problem of evil. The answer rendered may vary among the individual asked to solve the issue. Peterson, M. L. (1992). The problem of evil: Selected readings (Vol. 8). Univ of Notre Dame Pr. Plantinga, A. (1971). The free will defense (pp. 91-120). Stump, Eleonore. "The problem of evil." Faith and philosophy 2.4 (2009): 392-423. [...]
[...] Two primary objections to my proposed solution are often rendered. The first objection recognizes a logical inconsistency. Authors such as J.L. Mackie and H. J. McCloskey argue that it is not logical for God to exist in a world where suffering simultaneously exists (Plantinga, 1971). J.L. Mackie and H. J. McCloskey go on to argue that an omni-God would eliminate suffering. However, suffering exists so an omni-God could not possible exist (Plantinga, 1971). An example used to reveal their position involves a married man simultaneously claiming to be single. [...]
[...] People that actually take evil action are not good. An exemplification of God's omniscience is revealed through another portion of the response. It may be revealed that God is all knowing. Therefore, it would make perfect sense for God to know that over time the good would outweigh the bad. It would explain his actions and the simultaneous existence of evil. This completely reveals his omniscience. In conclusion, moral and natural evil may provide a solution to the problem of evil. [...]
using our reader.