The Problem of Evil in Religious Philosophy

download print

About this sample

About this sample


Words: 1660 |

Pages: 4|

9 min read

Published: May 24, 2022

Words: 1660|Pages: 4|9 min read

Published: May 24, 2022

Numerous religions reveal that God is perfect: all-knowing, all-incredible, and helpful. Why at that point do awful things occur? It is obviously evident that there is no more noteworthy impediment to confidence than that of the truth of underhanded and enduring on the planet. What's more, the disappointment is heightened in our day when implausible desires for well-being and success are encouraged by the lessons of a huge number of religious educators. For what reason does a decent God permit his animals, and even his kids to endure?

'Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned'?

The problem of evil, issue in religious philosophy, and the logic of religion that emerges for any view that attests to the accompanying three recommendations: God is omnipotent, God is splendidly great, and malice exists. The problem of evil emerges in light of the fact that the accompanying three statements contain a conflicting set:

  • God is omnipotent (which means there are no restrictions to what God can do)
  • God is all-good (great in the feeling of being effectively contradicted to evil)
  • Evil exits


Omnipotence means having unlimited power and the ability to do anything. Omnipotence ultimately derives from the Latin prefix Omni-, meaning 'all,' and the word potent, meaning “power”. We can say an omnipotent cad does everything because of all power.

The Omni- prefix has also given us similar words such as omniscient (meaning 'all-knowing'). Who knows everything is omniscient. An omniscient knows everything including past, present, and future. God can be omniscient because He knows everything. To start with, it's essential to recognize two sorts of evils: moral evils and natural evils. Moral evil results from the activities of free animals. Murder, assault, and robbery are precedents. Natural evil results from common procedures, for example, quakes and floods. Obviously, once in a while the two are intermixed, for example, when flooding results in the loss of human life because of a lack of common sense or terrible development of structures. It's helpful to distinguish between two types of the philosophical aspect of the problem of evil. The first is the logical challenge to belief in God. This challenge says it is irrational and hence impossible to believe in the existence of a good and powerful God on the basis of the existence of evil in the world. The argument of the evil

  • If there is a wholly good being, it tries to prevent all evils.
  • If there is an all-powerful being, it succeeds in doing everything it tries to do.
  • So: if there is a wholly good and all-powerful being, then all evils are prevented (i.e. there is no evil).
  • All evils are not prevented (i.e. there are evils).
  • So: there is no wholly good and all-powerful being.

It is sensibly difficult to trust that both abhorrence and a decent and amazing God exist in a similar reality, for such a God positively could and would devastate insidiously. Then again, the evidential test fights that while it might be objectively conceivable to accept such a God exists, it is very impossible or far-fetched that He does. We have proof of so much fiendishness that is apparently silly and of such appalling power. For what legitimate reason would a decent and amazing God permit the sum and sorts of wickedness which we see around us.

To solve the problem we have to reject the term that is God is wholly good or accept the term that is God is all-powerful to destroy the evils. But the term which rejected by us is not the solution. Because all the religious people such as Muslims, Hindus, Christians beliefs on God and love God. They believe that only God can destroy all the evils and He is the all-powerful being. At that point He is malignant. Is it accurate to say that he is both capable and willing? Whence then is shrewd? At the point when the doubter challenges confidence in God based on the consistent issue of malevolence, he is proposing that it is nonsensical or sensibly difficult to put stock in the presence of both a decent and all incredible God and in the truth of detestable and enduring. Such a God would not in any way, shape, or form enable underhandedness to exist.

While most concur that confidence in a decent and incredible God is reasonably conceivable, in any case, many battles that the presence of such a God is far-fetched because of the idea of the shrewd which we find on the planet about us. They infer that if such a God existed it is very far-fetched that He would permit the sum and power of fiendishness which we find in our reality. Fiendish which much of the time is by all accounts of such a purposeless nature.

This charge isn't to be trifled with, for proof possesses large amounts of our universe of the shrewdness of such a shocking nature, that it is troublesome now and again to understand what conceivable reason it could serve. Be that as it may, troublesome as this part of the issue of malevolence is, cautious reasoning will demonstrate that there are sensible reactions to this test. Definitely, it is troublesome for us to comprehend why God would enable a few things to occur. Be that as it may, essentially in light of the fact that we think that it’s hard to envision what reasons God could have for allowing them, doesn't imply that no such reasons exist. It is totally conceivable that such reasons are past our present learning, yet in addition past our present capacity to get it. A tyke does not generally comprehend the reasons that lie behind everyone of that his dad permits or does not enable him to do. It would be impossible for us to hope to see the majority of God's explanations behind permitting all that He does. We don't completely comprehend numerous things about the world we live in - what lies behind the power of gravity for example, or the definite capacity of subatomic particles. However, we trust in these physical substances.

Skeptical theism defends the problem of evil by asserting that God enables an underhandedness to occur so as to counteract a more prominent insidiousness or to empower a reaction that will prompt a more prominent good. Thus an assault or a homicide of an honest tyke is safeguarded as having a God's motivation that an individual may not grasp, however, which may prompt lesser detestable or more prominent good. This is called distrustful belief in higher powers on the grounds that the contention expects to support self-doubt, either by attempting to justify God's conceivable concealed thought processes or by endeavoring to clarify it as a restriction of the human capacity to know. More note worthy’s benefit resistance is all the more regularly contended in religious examinations because of the evidential form of the issue of evil, while the unrestrained choice protection is typically talked about with regards to the sensible version. Most researchers condemn the wary belief in higher powers barrier as 'depreciating the affliction' and not tending to the reason that God is all-big-hearted and ought to have the capacity to stop all misery and malevolence, instead of play an exercise in careful control. The issue of wickedness is now and again clarified as a result of through and through freedom, a capacity conceded by God. Free will is both a wellspring of good and of fiendishness and with choice likewise comes the potential for maltreatment, as when people act improperly. Individuals with through and through freedom 'choose to cause enduring and act in other fiendishness ways', states Boyd, and it is they who settle on that decision, not God. Further, the unrestrained choice contention attests that it would be legitimately conflicting for God to forestall underhanded by compulsion and abridging choice since that would never again be free will.

Commentators of the choice reaction have addressed whether it represents the level of wickedness found in this world. One point in such a manner is that while the estimation of unrestrained choice might be thought adequate to offset minor shades of malice, it is more subtle that it exceeds the negative properties of disasters, for example, assault and murder. Especially unfortunate cases known as unpleasant disasters, which at first sight motivation to question whether the member's life could (given their consideration in it) be an extraordinary decent to him/her all in all, have been the focal point of ongoing work in the issue of evil. Another point is that those activities of free creatures which achieve underhanded all the time reduce the opportunity of the individuals who endure the fiendishness; for instance, the homicide of a youthful youngster keeps the tyke from regularly practicing their through and through freedom. In such a case the opportunity of a blameless kid is hollowed against the opportunity of the criminal, it isn't clear why God would stay inert and passive.

Another analysis is that the potential for shrewdness innate in through and through freedom might be restricted by methods which don't encroach on that unrestrained choice. God could achieve this by making moral activities particularly pleasurable, or abhorrent activity and enduring unthinkable by permitting unrestrained choice yet not enabling the capacity to sanction malicious or force suffering. Supporters of the choice clarification express that would never again be free will. Critics react that this view appears to infer it would be likewise wrong to endeavor to lessen enduring and insidious in these ways, a position which few would advocate.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Good and evil will dependably exist. There's no probability to eradicate Evil totally. The main thing that can happen is a revaluation or Tran’s valuation of qualities. This idea alludes to the profound assessment of the qualities that are forced by society at a specific spot and time, and after that, on the off chance that we need we can make our own values (become ace ethical quality rather than a slave-ethical quality).


  1. Inwagen, P. v. (2002). Giffordlectures. Retrieved from
  2. Philoshophy Talk. (2008, June 8). Retrieved from
  3. Sherry, P. (2017). Problem of evil. ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA.
Image of Dr. Charlotte Jacobson
This essay was reviewed by
Dr. Charlotte Jacobson

Cite this Essay

The Problem of Evil in Religious Philosophy. (2022, May 24). GradesFixer. Retrieved June 24, 2024, from
“The Problem of Evil in Religious Philosophy.” GradesFixer, 24 May 2022,
The Problem of Evil in Religious Philosophy. [online]. Available at: <> [Accessed 24 Jun. 2024].
The Problem of Evil in Religious Philosophy [Internet]. GradesFixer. 2022 May 24 [cited 2024 Jun 24]. Available from:
Keep in mind: This sample was shared by another student.
  • 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
  • Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours
Write my essay

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled


Where do you want us to send this sample?

    By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.


    Be careful. This essay is not unique

    This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

    Download this Sample

    Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts


    Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.



    Please check your inbox.

    We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!


    Get Your
    Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

    We can help you get a better grade and deliver your task on time!
    • Instructions Followed To The Letter
    • Deadlines Met At Every Stage
    • Unique And Plagiarism Free
    Order your paper now