Problem of evil

The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God.[1][2] The best known presentation of the problem is attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus which was popularized by David Hume. Responses to the problem have traditionally been discussed under the heading of theodicy. Besides philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is also important to the fields of theology and ethics.

The problem of evil is often formulated in two forms: the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil. The logical form of the argument tries to show a logical impossibility in the coexistence of God and evil,[1][3] while the evidential form tries to show that given the evil in the world, it is improbable that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God.[2] The problem of evil has been extended to non-human life forms, to include animal suffering from natural evils and human cruelty against them.[4]

Responses to various versions of the problem of evil, meanwhile, come in three forms: refutations, defenses, and theodicies. A wide range of responses have been made against these arguments. There are also many discussions of evil and associated problems in other philosophical fields, such as secular ethics,[5][6][7] and evolutionary ethics.[8][9] But as usually understood, the "problem of evil" is posed in a theological context.[1][2]



A broad concept of evil defines it as any and all pain and suffering,[10] yet according to John Kemp, evil cannot be correctly understood on "a simple hedonic scale on which pleasure appears as a plus, and pain as a minus".[11][10] According to the National Institute of medicine, pain is essential for survival: "Without pain, the world would be an impossibly dangerous place".[12][13] Marcus Singer says that a usable definition of evil must be based on the knowledge that: "If something is really evil, it can't be necessary, and if it is really necessary, it can't be evil".[14]:186

The narrow concept of evil involves moral condemnation, and is applicable only to moral agents capable of making independent decisions, and their actions.[15]:322 Eve Garrard suggests that evil does not describe ordinary wrongdoing, and that "there is a qualitative and not merely a quantitative difference between evil acts and other wrongful ones; evil acts are not just very bad or wrongful acts, but rather ones possessing some specially horrific quality".[15]:321 Calder argues that evil must involve the attempt or desire to inflict significant harm on the victim without moral justification.[10]

Omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence

Omniscience is "maximal knowledge".[16] According to Edward Wierenga, maximal is not unlimited but limited to "God knowing what is knowable".[17]:25 This is the most widely accepted view of omniscience among scholars of the twenty-first century, and is what William Hasker calls freewill theism. Within this view, future events that depend upon choices made by individuals with freewill are unknowable until they occur.[18]:104; 137[16]:18–20

Omnipotence is maximal power to bring about events within the limits of possibility, but again maximal is not unlimited.[19] According to Hoffman and Rosenkrantz: "An omnipotent agent is not required to bring about an impossible state of affairs... maximal power has logical and temporal limitiations, including the limitation that an omnipotent agent cannot bring about, i.e., cause, another agent’s free decision".[19]

Omnibenevolence sees God as all loving. If God is omnibenevolent, He acts according to what is "Best", but if there is no "Best" available, God attempts, if possible, to bring about states of affairs that are creatable and are optimal within the limitations of physical reality.[20]

Defences and theodicies

Responses to the problem of evil have occasionally been classified as defences or theodicies though authors disagree on the exact definitions.[1][2][21] Generally, a defense refers to attempts to address the logical argument of evil that says "it is logically impossible — not just unlikely — that God exists".[2] This does not require a full explanation of evil, and it need not be true, or even probable, it need only be possible, since possibility invalidates the logic of impossibility.[22][3]

A theodicy, on the other hand, is more ambitious, since it attempts to provide a plausible justification – a morally or philosophically sufficient reason – for the existence of evil. This is intended to weaken the evidential argument which uses the reality of evil to argue the existence of God is unlikely.[2][23]


The problem of evil refers to the challenge of reconciling belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world.[2][23][24][note 1] The problem may be described either experientially or theoretically.[2] The experiential problem is the difficulty in believing in a concept of a loving God when confronted by evil and suffering in the real world, such as from epidemics, or wars, or murder, or natural disasters where innocent people become victims.[27][28][29] The problem of evil is also a theoretical one, usually described and studied by religion scholars in two varieties: the logical problem and the evidential problem.[2]

Logical problem of evil

Originating with Greek philosopher Epicurus,[30] Hume summarizes Epicurus's version of the problem as follows: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?"[31]

The logical argument from evil is as follows:

P1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.

P2. There is evil in the world.

C1. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.

This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid: If its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity. To show that the first premise is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on it, such as this modern example:[2]

P1a. God exists.

P1b. God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.

P1c. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.

P1d. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.

P1e. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.

P1f. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.

P1. If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.

P2. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

Both of these arguments are understood to be presenting two forms of the 'logical' problem of evil. They attempt to show that the assumed premises lead to a logical contradiction and therefore cannot all be correct. Most philosophical debate has focused on the suggestion that God would want to prevent all evils and therefore cannot coexist with any evils (premises 1d and 1f), with defenders of theism (for example, St. Augustine and Leibniz) arguing that God could very well exist with and allow evil in order to achieve a greater good.

If God lacks any one of these qualities—omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence—then the logical problem of evil can be resolved. Process theology and open theism are other positions that limit God's omnipotence or omniscience (as defined in traditional theology). Dystheism is the belief that God is not wholly good.

Evidential problem of evil

William L. Rowe's example of natural evil: "In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering."[32] Rowe also cites the example of human evil where an innocent child is a victim of violence and thereby suffers.[32]

The evidential problem of evil (also referred to as the probabilistic or inductive version of the problem) seeks to show that the existence of evil, although logically consistent with the existence of God, counts against or lowers the probability of the truth of theism. Both absolute versions and relative versions of the evidential problems of evil are presented below.

A version by William L. Rowe:

  1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
  2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
  3. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.[2]

Another by Paul Draper:

  1. Gratuitous evils exist.
  2. The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism.
  3. Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists.[33]

Problem of evil and animal suffering

The problem of evil has also been extended beyond human suffering, to include suffering of animals from cruelty, disease and evil.[4] One version of this problem includes animal suffering from natural evil, such as the violence and fear faced by animals from predators, natural disasters, over the history of evolution.[34] This is also referred to as the Darwinian problem of evil,[35][36] after Charles Darwin who stated in 1856 that "the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time' are apparently irreconcilable with the existence of a creator of 'unbounded' goodness".[37]

The second version of the problem of evil applied to animals, and avoidable suffering experienced by them, is one caused by some human beings, such as from animal cruelty or when they are shot or slaughtered. This version of the problem of evil has been used by scholars including John Hick to counter the responses and defenses to the problem of evil such as suffering being a means to perfect the morals and greater good because animals are innocent, helpless, amoral but sentient victims.[4][38][39] Scholar Michael Almeida said this was "perhaps the most serious and difficult" version of the problem of evil.[36] The problem of evil in the context of animal suffering, states Almeida, can be stated as:[40][note 2]

  1. God is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good.
  2. The evil of extensive animal suffering exists.
  3. Necessarily, God can actualize an evolutionary perfect world.
  4. Necessarily, God can actualize an evolutionary perfect world only if God does actualize an evolutionary perfect world.
  5. Necessarily, God actualized an evolutionary perfect world.
  6. If #1 is true then either #2 or #5 is true, but not both. This is a contradiction, so #1 is not true.

General critique

Critics have noted that theodicies and defenses are often addressed to the logical problem of evil. As such, they are intended only to demonstrate that it is possible that evil can co-exist with an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being. Since the relevant parallel commitment is that good can co-exist with an omniscient, omnipotent and omnimalevolent being, not that it is plausible that they should do so, the theist who is responding to the problem of evil need not be committing himself to something he is likely to think is false.[41] This reply, however, leaves the evidential problem of evil untouched.

Another general criticism is that though a theodicy may harmonize God with the existence of evil, it does so at the cost of nullifying morality. This is because most theodicies assume that whatever evil there is exists because it is required for the sake of some greater good. But if an evil is necessary because it secures a greater good, then it appears we humans have no duty to prevent it, for in doing so we would also prevent the greater good for which the evil is required. Even worse, it seems that any action can be rationalized, as if one succeeds in performing it, then God has permitted it, and so it must be for the greater good. From this line of thought one may conclude that, as these conclusions violate our basic moral intuitions, no greater good theodicy is true, and God does not exist. Alternatively, one may point out that greater good theodicies lead us to see every conceivable state of affairs as compatible with the existence of God, and in that case the notion of God's goodness is rendered meaningless.[42][43][44][45]

Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga's ultimate response to the problem of evil is that it is not a problem that can be solved. Christians simply cannot claim to know the answer to the “Why?” of evil. Plantinga stresses that this is why he does not proffer a theodicy but only a defense of the logic of theistic belief.[46]:33 Philosopher Richard Swinburne also says that, in its classic form, the argument from evil is unanswerable, yet there may be still be other strong reasons for affirming that there is a God, reasons for doubting the force of the argument itself, and specific reasons for doubting the criteria of the argument's premises.[47] According to John Hick, Christianity has traditionally responded within three main categories: the classic and most common freewill theodicy, the soul making theodicy, and process theology.[48]:79

Detailed arguments

Evolutionary theodicy

The only way theodicy

In response to arguments concerning natural evil and animal suffering, Christopher Southgate has developed a “compound evolutionary theodicy.”[49]:711 Robert John Russell summarizes it as beginning with an assertion of the goodness of creation and all sentient creatures.[50]:15 Next Southgate argues that Darwinian evolution was the only way God could create such goodness. "A universe with the sort of beauty, diversity, sentience and sophistication of creatures that the biosphere now contains" could only come about by the natural processes of evolution.[49]:716 Michael Ruse points out that Richard Dawkins has made the same claim concerning evolution.

Dawkins ...argues strenuously that selection and only selection can [produce adaptedness]. No one — and presumably this includes God — could have gotten adaptive complexity without going the route of natural selection... The Christian positively welcomes Dawkins’s understanding of Darwinism. Physical evil exists, and Darwinism explains why God had no choice but to allow it to occur. He wanted to produce design like effects (including humankind) and natural selection is the only option open.[49]:714

According to Russell and Southgate, the goodness of creation is intrinsically linked to the evolutionary processes by which such goodness is achieved, and these processes, in turn, inevitably come with pain and suffering as intrinsic to them.[49]:716 In this scenario, natural evils are an inevitable consequence of developing life.[49]:716 Russell goes on to say that the physical laws that undergird biological development, such as thermodynamics, also contribute to "what is tragic" and "what is glorious" about life.[49]:715 "Gravity, geology, and the specific orbit of the moon lead to the tidal patterns of the Earth’s oceans and thus to both the environment in which early life evolved and in which tsunamis bring death and destruction to countless thousands of people".[49]:717–718

Holmes Rolston III says nature embodies 'redemptive suffering' as exemplified by Jesus. "The capacity to suffer through to joy is a supreme emergent and an essence of Christianity... The whole evolutionary upslope is a lesser calling of this kind".[51] He calls it the 'cruciform creation' where life is constantly struggling through its pain and suffering toward something higher. Rolston says that within this process, there is no real waste as life and its components are "forever conserved, regenerated, redeemed".[52]

Bethany N. Sollereder writes that evolving life has become increasingly complex, skilled and interdependent. As it has become more intelligent and has increased its ability to relate emotionally, the capacity to suffer has also increased.[53]:6 Southgate describes this using Romans 8:22 which says "the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth" since its beginning. He says God responds to this reality by "co-suffering" with “every sentient being in creation".[49]:716–720 Southgate's theodicy rejects any 'means to an end' argument that says the evolution of any species justifies the suffering and extinction of any prior species that led to it, and he affirms that "all creatures which have died, without their full potential having been realized, must be given fulfillment elsewhere".[50]:63 Russell asserts that the only satisfactory understanding of that “elsewhere” is the eschatological hope that the present creation will be transformed by God into the New Creation, with its new heaven and new earth.[49]:718–720

Others have argued

  • that natural evils are the result of the fall of man, which corrupted the perfect world created by God[54]
  • that forces of nature are neither "goods" nor "evils". They just are. Nature produces actions vital to some forms of life and lethal to others.[55] Other life forms cause diseases, but for the disease, hosts provide food, shelter and a place to reproduce which are necessary things for life and are not by their nature evil.[56]:170
  • that natural evils are the result of natural laws[57] Williams points out that all the natural laws are necessary for life, and even death and natural disaster are necessary aspects of a developing universe.[note 3]
  • that natural evils provide us with a knowledge of evil which makes our free choices more significant than they would otherwise be, and so our free will more valuable[58] or
  • that natural evils are a mechanism of divine punishment for moral evils that humans have committed, and so the natural evil is justified.[59]



In what Russell describes as a "blistering attack by Wesley Wildman" on Southgate's theodicy, Wildman asserts that "if God really is to create a heavenly world of 'growth and change and relationality, yet no suffering', that world and not this world would be the best of all possible worlds, and a God that would not do so would be 'flagrantly morally inconsistent'."[60]:290[49]:724 Southgate has responded that, since this was the world God created, we can justifiably presume this was the only type of world that would do for creating the 'selves' of each sentient creature. That means "our guess must be that though heaven can eternally preserve those selves subsisting in suffering-free relationship, it could not give rise to them in the first place".[49]:720


Thomas Tracy offers a two point critique: "The first is the problem of purpose: can evolutionary processes, in which chance plays so prominent a role, be understood as the context of God's purposive action? The second is the problem of the pervasiveness of suffering and death in evolution".[61]

John Polkinghorne addresses Tracy's objections by discussing chance as a necessary aspect of evolution: too much deterministic order and there is no new life, too much chaos and life cannot adapt.[62]:317 According to Polkinghorne, the existence of chance does not negate the power and purposes of a Creator because "it is entirely possible that contingent processes can, in fact, lead to determined ends".[62]:317–318 But in Polkinghorne's view, God is not a "Puppetmaster pulling every string".[62]:317 Francisco J. Ayala adds that this means "God is not the explicit designer of each facet of evolution".[63][49]:714 For Polkinghorne, it is sufficient theologically to assume that "the emergence of some form of self-conscious, God-conscious being" was an aspect of divine purpose from the beginning whether God purposed humankind specifically or not.[62]:317–318

Polkinghorne links the existence of human freedom to the flexibility created by randomness in the quantum world.[64] Richard W. Kropf asserts that free will has its origins in the "evolutionary ramifications" of the existence of chance as part of the process, thereby providing a "causal connection" between natural evil and the possibility of human freedom: one cannot exist without the other.[65]:2; 122 Polkinghorne writes this means that "there is room for independent action in order for creatures to be themselves and "make themselves" in evolution.[62]:318–319

A world in which creatures 'make themselves' can be held to be a greater good than a ready-made world would have been, but it has an inescapable cost. Evolutionary processes will not only yield great fruitfulness, but they will also necessarily involve ragged edges and blind alleys. Genetic mutation will not only produce new forms of life, but it will also result in malignancy. One cannot have the one without the other. The existence of cancer is an anguishing fact about creation but it is not gratuitous, something that a Creator who was a bit more competent or a bit less callous could easily have avoided. It is part of the shadow side of creative process... The more science helps us to understand the processes of the world, the more we see that the good and the bad are inextricably intertwined... It is all a package deal".[62]:318

Free will defense

The problem of evil is sometimes explained as a consequence of free will.[66][67] Free will is a source of both good and of evil, since with free will comes the potential for abuse. People with free will make their own decisions to do wrong, states Gregory Boyd, and it is they who make that choice, not God.[66] Further, the free will argument asserts that it would be logically inconsistent for God to prevent evil by coercion because then human will would no longer be free.[66][67] The key assumption underlying the free-will defense is that a world containing creatures who are significantly free is an innately more valuable world than one containing no free creatures at all. The sort of virtues and values that freedom makes possible – such as trust, love, charity, sympathy, tolerance, loyalty, kindness, forgiveness and friendship – are virtues that cannot exist as they are currently known and experienced without the freedom to choose them or not choose them. Such "goods" benefit those who receive them and those who bestow them.[68]:30

Augustine proffered a theodicy of freewill in the fourth century, but the contemporary version is best represented by Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga offers a free will defense, instead of a theodicy, that began as a response to three assertions raised by J. L. Mackie.[46] First, Mackie asserts "there is no possible world" in which the "essential" theistic beliefs Mackie describes can all be true. Either believers retain a set of inconsistent beliefs, or believers can give up "at least one of the 'essential propositions' of their faith".[69]:90, 97–98 Second, there is Mackie's statement that an all powerful God, in creating the world, could have made "beings who would act freely, but always go right", and third is the question of what choices would have been logically available to such a God at creation.[69]:98

Plantinga agrees that there were innumerable possible worlds, some with moral good but no moral evil, available to God before creation.[46]:38 We live in the actual world (the world God actualized), but God could have chosen to create (actualize) any of the possibilities. The catch, Plantinga says, is that it is possible that factors within the possible worlds themselves prevented God from actualizing any of those worlds with moral goodness and no moral evil. Plantinga refers to these factors as the nature of "human essences" and “transworld depravity".[68]:51–53

Across the various possible worlds (transworld) are all the variations of possible humans, each with their own "human essence" (identity): core properties essential to each person that makes them who they are and distinguishes them from others. Every person is the instantiation of such an essence. This "transworld identity" varies in details but not in essence from world to world.[68]:50–51 This might include variations of a person (X) who always chooses right in some worlds. If somewhere, in some world, (X) ever freely chooses wrong, then the other possible worlds of only goodness could not be actualized and still leave (X) fully free.[70]:184 There might be numerous possible worlds which contained (X) doing only morally good things, but these would not be worlds that God could bring into being, because (X) effectively eliminated those options through free action in other possible worlds. (X)'s free choice determined the world available for God to create.[70]:187–188

An all knowing God would know "in advance" that there are times when "no matter what circumstances” God places (X) in, as long as God leaves (X) free, (X) will make at least one bad choice. Plantinga terms this "transworld depravity".[70]:186 Therefore, if God wants (X) to be a part of creation, and free, then it could mean that the only option such a God would have would be to have an (X) who goes wrong at least once in a world where such wrong is possible. "What is important about transworld depravity is that if a person suffers from it, then it wasn’t within God’s power to actualize any world in which that person is significantly free but does no wrong".[68]:48 Plantinga extends this to all human agents noting, "clearly it is possible that everybody suffers from transworld depravity".[70]:186 This means creating a world with moral good, no moral evil, and truly free persons was not an option available to God. The only way to have a world free of moral evil would be “by creating one without significantly free persons".[70]:189


Most philosophers accept Plantinga's free-will defense and see the logical problem of evil as having been fully rebutted, according to Chad Meister, Robert Adams, and William Alston.[71][72][73] In 1982, Mackie conceded that Plantinga's defense successfully refuted his argument in The Miracle of Theism, though he did not claim that the problem of evil had been fully put to rest.[74] William L. Rowe, in referring to Plantinga's argument, has written that "granted incompatibilism, there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God".[75] In Arguing About Gods, Graham Oppy offers a dissent; while he acknowledges that "[m]any philosophers seem to suppose that [Plantinga's free-will defense] utterly demolishes the kinds of 'logical' arguments from evil developed by Mackie", he also says "I am not sure this is a correct assessment of the current state of play".[76] Among contemporary philosophers, most discussion on the problem of evil currently revolves around the evidential problem of evil, namely that the existence of God is unlikely, rather than logically impossible.[77]

Critics of the free will response have questioned whether it accounts for the degree of evil seen in this world. One point in this regard is that while the value of free will may be thought sufficient to counterbalance minor evils, it is less obvious that it outweighs the negative attributes of evils such as rape and murder. Particularly egregious cases known as horrendous evils, which "[constitute] prima facie reason to doubt whether the participant’s life could (given their inclusion in it) be a great good to him/her on the whole," have been the focus of recent work in the problem of evil.[78] Another point is that those actions of free beings which bring about evil very often diminish the freedom of those who suffer the evil; for example the murder of a young child prevents the child from ever exercising their free will. In such a case the freedom of an innocent child is pitted against the freedom of the evil-doer, it is not clear why God would remain unresponsive and passive.[79] Christopher Southgate asserts that a freewill defense cannot stand alone as sufficient to explain the abundance of situations where humans are deprived of freewill. It requires a secondary theory.[50]:42

Another criticism is that the potential for evil inherent in free will may be limited by means which do not impinge on that free will. God could accomplish this by making moral actions especially pleasurable, or evil action and suffering impossible by allowing free will but not allowing the ability to enact evil or impose suffering.[80] Supporters of the free will explanation state that that would no longer be free will.[66][67] Critics respond that this view seems to imply it would be similarly wrong to try to reduce suffering and evil in these ways, a position which few would advocate.[81]

Natural evil

A third challenge to the free will defence is natural evil, evil which is the result of natural causes (e.g. a child suffering from a disease, mass casualties from a volcano).[82] The "natural evil" criticism posits that even if for some reason an all-powerful and all-benevolent God tolerated evil human actions in order to allow free will, such a God would not be expected to also tolerate natural evils because they have no apparent connection to free will.[66][67] Patricia A. Williams says differentiating between moral and natural evil is common but, in her view, unjustified. "Because human beings and their choices are part of nature, all evils are natural".[56]:169

Advocates of the free will response propose various explanations of natural evils. Alvin Plantinga,[1][83] references Augustine of Hippo,[84] writing of the possibility that natural evils could be caused by supernatural beings such as Satan.[85] Plantinga emphasizes that it is not necessary that this be true, it is only necessary that this possibility be compatible with the argument from freewill.[83]:58 There are those who respond that Plantinga's freewill response might address moral evil but not natural evil.[86] Some scholars, such as David Griffin, state that free will, or the assumption of greater good through free will, does not apply to animals.[87][88] In contrast, a few scholars, while accepting that "free will" applies in a human context, have posited an alternative "free creatures" defense, stating that animals too benefit from their physical freedom though that comes with the cost of dangers they continuously face.[89]

The "free creatures" defense has also been criticized, in the case of caged, domesticated and farmed animals who are not free and many of whom have historically experienced evil and suffering from abuse by their owners. Further, even animals and living creatures in the wild face horrendous evils and suffering—such as burns and slow death after natural fires or other natural disasters or from predatory injuries—and it is unclear, state Bishop and Perszyk, why an all-loving God would create such free creatures prone to intense suffering.[89]

Process theodicy

"Process theodicy reframes the debate on the problem of evil" by acknowledging that, since God "has no monopoly on power, creativity, and self-determination", God's power and ability to influence events are, of necessity, limited by human creatures with wills of their own.[90]:143 This concept of limitation is one of the key aspects of process theodicy; another key element is its stressing of the "here and now" presence of God. God becomes the Great Companion and Fellow-Sufferer where the future is realized hand-in-hand with the sufferer.[90]:143 The God of process theology is a benevolent Providence that feels a person's pain and suffering, and through knowledge of all possibilities, provides "ideal aims to help overcome them in light of (a) the evil that has been suffered and (b) the range of good possibilities allowed by that past".[48]:93 God's will is only one factor in any situation, making that will “variable in effectiveness”, because all God can do is try to persuade the person in the best direction and make sure that possibility is available.[48]:98–100 The God of process theology cannot unilaterally intervene and coerce a certain outcome, but "God labors in every situation to mediate the power of compassion to suffering" by enlisting persons as mediators of that compassion.[91] Griffin quotes John Hick noting “the stirring summons to engage on God’s side in the never-ending struggle against the evils of an intractable world" as another key characteristic of process theology.[92]


A hallmark of process theodicy is its conception of God as persuasive rather than coercive.[93]:179 Nancy Frankenberry asserts that this creates an either-or dichotomy – either God is persuasive or coercive – whereas lived experience has an "irreducible ambiguity" where it seems God can be both.[93]:180–181

Since the 1940s, process theodicy has also been "dogged by the problem of 'religious adequacy' of its concept of God" and doubts about the 'goodness' of its view of God.[93]:186 It has not resolved all the old questions concerning the problem of evil,[94] while it has raised new ones concerning "the nature of divine power, the meaning of God's goodness, and the realistic assessment of what we may reasonably hope for by way of creative advance".[93]:196

"Greater good" responses

The greater good defense is more often argued in response to the evidential version of the problem of evil,[95] while the free will defense is often discussed in the context of the logical version.[96] Some solutions propose that omnipotence does not require the ability to actualize the logically impossible. "Greater good" responses to the problem make use of this insight by arguing for the existence of goods of great value which God cannot actualize without also permitting evil, and thus that there are evils he cannot be expected to prevent despite being omnipotent. Skeptical theologians argue that, since no one can fully understand God's ultimate plan, no one can assume that evil actions do not have some sort of greater purpose.[97]

Skeptical theism

"According to skeptical theism, if there were a god, it is likely that he would have reasons for acting that are beyond [human] ken, ... the fact that we don’t see a good reason for X does not justify the conclusion that there is no good reason for X".[98] One standard of sufficient reason for allowing evil is by asserting that God allows an evil in order to prevent a greater evil or cause a greater good.[99] Pointless evil, then, is an evil that does not meet this standard; it is an evil God permitted where there is no outweighing good or greater evil. The existence of such pointless evils would lead to the conclusion there is no benevolent god.[100]:79 The skeptical theist asserts that humans can't know that such a thing as pointless evil exists, that humans as limited beings are simply "in the dark" concerning the big picture on how all things work together. "The skeptical theist’s skepticism affirms certain limitations to [human] knowledge with respect to the realms of value and modality".[101]:6, 8 "Thus, skeptical theism purports to undercut most a posteriori arguments against the existence of God".[98]

Skeptical theism is applicable to the first premise of William Rowe's argument: "There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse";[101]:11–12 and to John Schellenberg's argument of divine hiddenness;[101]:13–14 and to the first premise of Paul Draper's Hypothesis of Indifference which begins "Gratuitous evil exists".[101]:15–18


Skeptical theism is criticized by Richard Swinburne on the basis that the appearance of some evils having no possible explanation is sufficient to agree there can be none, (which is also susceptible to the skeptic's response); and it is criticized on the basis that, accepting it leads to skepticism about morality itself.[102]

Soul-making or Irenaean theodicy

The soul-making (or Irenaean) theodicy is named after the 2nd-century Greek theologian Irenaeus whose ideas were adopted in Eastern Christianity.[103] It has been modified and advocated in the twenty-first century by John Hick.[103] Irenaen theodicy stands in sharp contrast to the Augustinian. For Augustine, humans were created perfect but fell, and thereafter continued to choose badly of their own freewill. In Irenaeus' view, humans were not created perfect, but instead, must strive continuously to move closer to it.[104]

The key points of a soul-making theodicy begin with its metaphysical foundation: that "(1) The purpose of God in creating the world was soul-making for rational moral agents".[105] (2) Humans choose their responses to the soul-making process thereby developing moral character. (3) This requires that God remain hidden, otherwise freewill would be compromised. (4) This hiddenness is created, in part, by the presence of evil in the world. (5) The distance of God makes moral freedom possible, while the existence of obstacles makes meaningful struggle possible. (6) The end result of beings who complete the soul-making process is "a good of such surpassing value" that it justifies the means. (7) Those who complete the process will be admitted to the kingdom of God where there will be no more evil.[105] Hick argues that, for suffering to have soul-making value, "human effort and development must be present at every stage of existence including the afterlife".[48]:132, 138


The Irenaean theodicy is challenged by the assertion that many evils do not promote spiritual growth, but can instead be destructive of the human spirit. Hick acknowledges that this process often fails in our world.[106] Horrendous suffering often leads to dehumanization, and its victims become angry, bitter, vindictive and spiritually worse.[107] Yet, life crises are a catalyst for change that is often positive.[108] Neurologists Bryan Kolb and Bruce Wexler indicate this has to do with the plasticity of the brain. The brain is highly plastic in childhood development, becoming less so by adulthood once development is completed. Thereafter, the brain resists change.[109]:5–9 The neurons in the brain can only make permanent changes "when the conditions are right" because the brain's development is dependent upon the stimulation it receives.[110]:7 [109]:13 When the brain receives the powerful stimulus that experiences like bereavement, life threatening illness, and other deeply painful experiences provide, a prolonged and difficult internal struggle, where the individual completely re-examines their self-concept and perceptions of reality, reshapes neurological structures.[109]:6–7[111]:4 The literature refers to turning points,[112] defining moments,[113] crucible moments,[114] and life-changing events.[115] These are experiences that form a catalyst in an individual’s life so that the individual is personally transformed, often emerging with a sense of learning, strength and growth, that empowers them to pursue different paths than they otherwise would have.[111]:2

A second critique argues that, were it true that God permitted evil in order to facilitate spiritual growth, it might be reasonable to expect that evil would disproportionately befall those in poor spiritual health such as the decadent wealthy, who often seem to enjoy lives of luxury insulated from evil, whereas many of the pious are poor and well acquainted with worldly evils.[116] Using the example of St.Francis of Assisi, G. K. Chesterton argues that, contrary "to the modern mind", wealth is condemned in this theology because wealth insulates from evil and spiritual growth, and that Assisi pursued poverty "as men have dug madly for gold" because it is a path to piety.[117]:32; 89–90

G. Stanley Kane asserts that human character can be developed directly in constructive and nurturing loving ways, and it is unclear why God would consider or allow evil and suffering to be necessary or the preferred way to spiritual growth.[103]:376–379 Hick asserts that "...one who has attained to goodness by meeting and eventually mastering temptation, and thus by rightly making [responsible] choices in concrete situations, is good in a richer and more valuable sense than would be one created ab initio in a state either of innocence or of virtue. In the former case, which is that of the actual moral achievements of mankind, the individual’s goodness has within it the strength of temptations overcome, a stability based upon an accumulation of right choices, and a positive and responsible character that comes from the investment of costly personal effort."[106]:255 However, the virtues identified as the result of "soul-making" may only appear to be valuable in a world where evil and suffering already exist. A willingness to sacrifice oneself in order to save others from persecution, for example, is virtuous because persecution exists. Likewise, the willingness to donate one's meal to those who are starving is valuable because starvation exists. If persecution and starvation did not occur, there would be no reason to consider these acts virtuous. If the virtues developed through soul-making are only valuable where suffering exists, then it is not clear what would be lost if suffering did not exist.[118] C. Robert Mesle says that such a discussion between genuine and apparent evil and good presupposes that such virtues as charity are only instrumentally valuable instead of intrinsically valuable.[119]

The soul-making reconciliation of the problem of evil, states Creegan, fails to explain the need or rationale for evil inflicted on animals and resultant animal suffering, because "there is no evidence at all that suffering improves the character of animals, or is evidence of soul-making in them".[107] Hick differentiates between animal and human suffering based on "our capacity imaginatively to anticipate the future".[106]:314

Cruciform theodicy

Cruciform theodicy is not a theodical system in the same manner that Soul-making theodicy and Process theodicy are, so it does not address all the questions of "the origin, nature, problem, reason and end of evil."[90]:145 It is a thematic trajectory that, historically, has been the primary Christian response to the problem of evil. Its inclusion as a theme divides general theistic theodicies from specifically Christian ones.[48]:79–80 Its key elements are:

  • God not being a distant deity but instead, as James Cone states, seeing in the person of Jesus, “God’s identity with the suffering of the world".[120] Marilyn McCord Adams says incarnation is the "culmination of a series of things Divine love does to unite itself with material creation...".[121]
  • The cruciform theodicy asserts that an ontological change in the underlying structure of existence has taken place through the life and death of Jesus, with its immersion in human suffering, transforming suffering itself. Philosopher and Christian priest Marilyn McCord Adams offers this theodicy of "redemptive suffering" in which personal suffering becomes an aspect of Christ's "transformative power of redemption" in the world.[121]:ix[90]:158–168 An alteration in thinking of the believer also occurs in this model, as they come to see existence in a new light. For example, "On July 16, 1944 awaiting execution in a Nazi prison and reflecting on Christ's experience of powerlessness and pain, Dietrich Bonhoeffer penned six words that became the clarion call for the modern theological paradigm: 'Only the suffering God can help'."[90]:146
  • This theodicy contains a special concern for the victims of the world, and stresses the importance of caring for those who suffer at the hands of injustice.[90]:146–148 Soelle says that Christ's willingness to suffer on behalf of others means that his followers must themselves serve as "God’s representatives on earth" by struggling against evil and injustice and being willing to suffer for those on the "underside of history".[122]


Thomas Aquinas suggested the afterlife theodicy to address the problem of evil and to justify the existence of evil.[123] The premise behind this theodicy is that the afterlife is unending, human life is short, and God allows evil and suffering in order to judge and grant everlasting heaven or hell based on human moral actions and human suffering.[123][124][125] Aquinas says that the afterlife is the greater good that justifies the evil and suffering in current life.[123] Christian author Randy Alcorn argues that the joys of heaven will compensate for the sufferings on earth.[126]

Stephen Maitzen has called this the "Heaven Swamps Everything" theodicy, and argues that it is false because it conflates compensation and justification.[124][127] This theodical view is based on the principle that under a just God, "no innocent creature suffers misery that is not compensated by happiness at some later stage (e. g. an afterlife)" but in the traditional view, animals don't have an afterlife.[128][129]

Deny evil exists

In the second century, Christian theologians attempted to reconcile the problem of evil with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God, by denying that evil exists. Among these theologians, Clement of Alexandria offered several theodicies, of which one was called "privation theory of evil" which was adopted thereafter.[130] The other is a more modern version of "deny evil", suggested by Christian Science, wherein the perception of evil is described as a form of illusion.[131]

Evil as the absence of good (privation theory)

The early version of "deny evil" is called the "privation theory of evil", so named because it described evil as a form of "lack, loss or privation". One of the earliest proponents of this theory was the 2nd-century Clement of Alexandria, who according to Joseph Kelly,[130] stated that "since God is completely good, he could not have created evil; but if God did not create evil, then it cannot exist". Evil, according to Clement, does not exist as a positive, but exists as a negative or as a "lack of good".[130] Clement's idea was criticised for its inability to explain suffering in the world, if evil did not exist. He was also pressed by Gnostics scholars with the question as to why God did not create creatures that "did not lack the good". Clement attempted to answer these questions ontologically through dualism, an idea found in the Platonic school,[132] that is by presenting two realities, one of God and Truth, another of human and perceived experience.[133]

The fourth-century theologian Augustine of Hippo adopted the privation theory, and in his Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, maintained that evil exists as "absence of the good".[132] God is a spiritual, (not corporeal), Being who is sovereign over other lesser beings because God created material reality ex nihilo. Augustine's view of evil relies on the causal principle that every cause is superior to its effects.[134]:43 God is innately superior to his creation, and "everything that God creates is good."[134]:40–42 Every creature is good, but "some are better than others (De nat. boni c. Man.14)".[134]:44 However, created beings also have tendencies toward mutability and corruption because they were created out of nothing. They are subject to the prejudices that come from personal perspective: humans care about what affects themselves, and fail to see how their privation might contribute to the common good. For Augustine, evil, when it refers to God's material creation, refers to a privation, an absence of goodness "where goodness might have been (Conf.3.7.12)".[134]:44 Evil is not a substance that exists in its own right separately from the nature of all Being.[135] This absence of good is an act of the will, "a culpable rejection of the infinite bounty God offers in favor of an infinitely inferior fare", freely chosen by the will of an individual.[134]:46


This view has been criticized as semantics: substituting a definition of evil with "loss of good", of "problem of evil and suffering" with the "problem of loss of good and suffering", neither addresses the issue from the theoretical point of view nor from the experiential point of view.[136] Scholars who criticize the privation theory state that murder, rape, terror, pain and suffering are real life events for the victim, and cannot be denied as mere "lack of good".[137] Augustine, states Pereira, accepted suffering exists and was aware that the privation theory was not a solution to the problem of evil.[136]

Evil as illusory

An alternative modern version of the privation theory is by Christian Science, which asserts that evils such as suffering and disease only appear to be real, but in truth are illusions, and in reality evil does not exist.[131] The theologians of Christian Science, states Stephen Gottschalk, posit that the Spirit is of infinite might, mortal human beings fail to grasp this and focus instead on evil and suffering that have no real existence as "a power, person or principle opposed to God".[138]

The illusion version of privation theory theodicy has been critiqued for denying the reality of crimes, wars, terror, sickness, injury, death, suffering and pain to the victim.[138] Further, adds Millard Erickson, the illusion argument merely shifts the problem to a new problem, as to why God would create this "illusion" of crimes, wars, terror, sickness, injury, death, suffering and pain; and why God does not stop this "illusion".[139]

Turning the tables

A different approach to the problem of evil is to turn the tables by suggesting that any argument from evil is self-refuting, in that its conclusion would necessitate the falsity of one of its premises. One response—called the defensive response[140]—has been to assert the opposite, and to point out that the assertion "evil exists" implies an ethical standard against which moral value is determined, and then to argue that this standard implies the existence of God.[141]

The standard criticism of this view is that an argument from evil is not necessarily a presentation of the views of its proponent, but is instead intended to show how premises which the theist is inclined to believe lead them to the conclusion that God does not exist. A second criticism is that the existence of evil can be inferred from the suffering of its victims, rather than by the actions of the evil actor, so no "ethical standard" is implied.[142][143] This argument was expounded upon by David Hume.[140]

Hidden reasons

A variant of above defenses is that the problem of evil is derived from probability judgments since they rest on the claim that, even after careful reflection, one can see no good reason for co-existence of God and of evil. The inference from this claim to the general statement that there exists unnecessary evil is inductive in nature and it is this inductive step that sets the evidential argument apart from the logical argument.[2]

The hidden reasons defense asserts that there exists the logical possibility of hidden or unknown reasons for the existence of evil along with the existence of an almighty, all-knowing, all-benevolent, all-powerful God. Not knowing the reason does not necessarily mean that the reason does not exist.[1][2] This argument has been challenged with the assertion that the hidden reasons premise is as plausible as the premise that God does not exist or is not "an almighty, all-knowing, all-benevolent, all-powerful". Similarly, for every hidden argument that completely or partially justifies observed evils it is equally likely that there is a hidden argument that actually makes the observed evils worse than they appear without hidden arguments, or that the hidden reasons may result in additional contradictions.[1][144] As such, from an inductive viewpoint hidden arguments will neutralize one another.[1]

A sub-variant of the "hidden reasons" defense is called the "PHOG"—profoundly hidden outweighing goods—defense.[144] The PHOG defense, states Bryan Frances, not only leaves the co-existence of God and human suffering unanswered, but raises questions about why animals and other life forms have to suffer from natural evil, or from abuse (animal slaughter, animal cruelty) by some human beings, where hidden moral lessons, hidden social good and such hidden reasons to reconcile God with the problem of evil do not apply.[144]


Pandeism is a modern theory that unites deism and pantheism, and asserts that God created the universe but during creation became the universe.[145] In pandeism, God is no superintending, heavenly power, capable of hourly intervention into earthly affairs. No longer existing "above," God cannot intervene from above and cannot be blamed for failing to do so. God, in pandeism, was omnipotent and omnibenevolent, but in the form of universe is no longer omnipotent, omnibenevolent.[146]:76–77

Evil God Challenge

One resolution to the problem of evil is that God is not good. The Evil God Challenge thought experiment explores whether the hypothesis that God might be evil has symmetrical consequences to a good God, and whether it is more likely that God is good, evil, or non-existent.


The earliest statement of the problem of evil is attributed to Epicurus, but this is uncertain.[147]


Epicurus is generally credited with first expounding the problem of evil, and it is sometimes called the "Epicurean paradox", the "riddle of Epicurus", or the "Epicurus' trilemma":

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

— The Epicurean paradox, ~300 BCE[148]

There is no surviving written text of Epicurus that establishes that he actually formulated the problem of evil in this way, and it is uncertain that he was the author.[147] An attribution to him can be found in a text dated about 600 years later, in the 3rd century Christian theologian Lactantius's Treatise on the Anger of God[note 4] where Lactantius critiques the argument. Epicurus's argument as presented by Lactantius actually argues that a god that is all-powerful and all-good does not exist and that the gods are distant and uninvolved with man's concerns. The gods are neither our friends nor enemies.

David Hume

David Hume's formulation of the problem of evil in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion:

"Is he [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?"[151]

"[God's] power we allow [is] infinite: Whatever he wills is executed: But neither man nor any other animal are happy: Therefore he does not will their happiness. His wisdom is infinite: He is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end: But the course of nature tends not to human or animal felicity: Therefore it is not established for that purpose. Through the whole compass of human knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and infallible than these. In what respect, then, do his benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men?"

Gottfried Leibniz

Gottfried Leibniz

In his Dictionnaire Historique et Critique, the sceptic Pierre Bayle denied the goodness and omnipotence of God on account of the sufferings experienced in this earthly life. Gottfried Leibniz introduced the term theodicy in his 1710 work Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal ("Theodicic Essays on the Benevolence of God, the Free will of man, and the Origin of Evil") which was directed mainly against Bayle. He argued that this is the best of all possible worlds that God could have created.

Imitating the example of Leibniz, other philosophers also called their treatises on the problem of evil theodicies. Voltaire's popular novel Candide mocked Leibnizian optimism through the fictional tale of a naive youth.

Thomas Robert Malthus

The population and economic theorist Thomas Malthus stated in a 1798 essay that people with health problems or disease are not suffering, and should not viewed as such. Malthus argued, "Nothing can appear more consonant to our reason than that those beings which come out of the creative process of the world in lovely and beautiful forms should be crowned with immortality, while those which come out misshapen, those whose minds are not suited to a purer and happier state of existence, should perish and be condemned to mix again with their original clay. Eternal condemnation of this kind may be considered as a species of eternal punishment, and it is not wonderful that it should be represented, sometimes, under images of suffering."[152]

Malthus believed in the Supreme Creator, considered suffering as justified, and suggested that God should be considered "as pursuing the creatures that had offended him with eternal hate and torture, instead of merely condemning to their original insensibility those beings that, by the operation of general laws, had not been formed with qualities suited to a purer state of happiness."[153]

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant wrote an essay on theodicy.[154] He suggested, states William Dembski, that any successful theodicy must prove one of three things: [1] what one deems contrary to the purposefulness of world is not so; [2] if one deems it is contrary, then one must consider it not as a positive fact, but inevitable consequence of the nature of things; [3] if one accepts that it is a positive fact, then one must posit that it is not the work of God, but of some other beings such as man or superior spirits, good or evil.[154]

Kant did not attempt or exhaust all theodicies to help address the problem of evil. He claimed there is a reason all possible theodicies must fail.[155] While a successful philosophical theodicy has not been achieved in his time, added Kant, there is no basis for a successful anti-theodicy either.[156]

Religious responses

The problem of evil is acute for monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism that believe in a God who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent;[157][158] but the question of "why does evil exist?" has also been studied in religions that are non-theistic or polytheistic, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism.[23][159]

See also

Notes and references


  1. ^ Omniscient means "all-knowing", omnipotent means "all-powerful, almighty", and omnibenevolent refers to the quality of "all-good, all-loving".[25][26]
  2. ^ Nicola Creegan has presented the logical and evidential versions of the problem of evil when applied to animal suffering.[34]
  3. ^ When stars burn, explode and die, the heavy elements are born and distributed, feeding life. When the first living organisms die, they make room for more complex ones and begin the process of natural selection. When organisms die, new life feeds on them... the sources of [natural] evil lie in attributes so valuable that we would not even consider eliminating them in order to eradicate evil.[56]:169, 179
  4. ^

    Quod si haec ratio vera est, quam stoici nullo modo videre potuerunt, dissolvitur etiam argumentum illud Epicuri. Deus, inquit, aut vult tollere mala et non potest; aut potest et non vult; aut neque vult, neque potest; aut et vult et potest. Si vult et non potest, imbecillis est; quod in Deum non cadit. Si potest et non vult, invidus; quod aeque alienum a Deo. Si neque vult, neque potest, et invidus et imbecillis est; ideoque neque Deus. Si vult et potest, quod solum Deo convenit, unde ergo sunt mala? aut cur illa non tollit? Scio plerosque philosophorum, qui providentiam defendunt, hoc argumento perturbari solere et invitos pene adigi, ut Deum nihil curare fateantur, quod maxime quaerit Epicurus.

    — Lactantius, De Ira Dei[149]

    But if this account is true, which the Stoics were in no manner able to see, that argument also of Epicurus is done away. God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing or able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils or why does He not remove them? I know that many of the philosophers, who defend providence, are accustomed to be disturbed by this argument, and are almost driven against their will to admit that God takes no interest in anything, which Epicurus especially aims at.

    — Lactantius, On the Anger of God[150]


  1. ^ a b c d e f g h The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Problem of Evil", Michael Tooley
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Evidential Problem of Evil", Nick Trakakis
  3. ^ a b The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Logical Problem of Evil", James R. Beebe
  4. ^ a b c Peter van Inwagen (2008). The Problem of Evil. Oxford University Press. pp. 120, 123–26, context: 120–33. ISBN 978-0-19-954397-7.
  5. ^ Nicholas J. Rengger, Moral Evil and International Relations, in SAIS Review 25:1, Winter/Spring 2005, pp. 3–16
  6. ^ Peter Kivy, Melville's Billy and the Secular Problem of Evil: the Worm in the Bud, in The Monist (1980), 63
  7. ^ Kekes, John (1990). Facing Evil. Princeton: Princeton UP. ISBN 978-0-691-07370-5.
  8. ^ Timothy Anders, The Evolution of Evil (2000)
  9. ^ Lawrence C. Becker; Charlotte B. Becker (2013). Encyclopedia of Ethics. Routledge. pp. 147–49. ISBN 978-1-135-35096-3.
  10. ^ a b c Calder, Todd. "The Concept of Evil". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Retrieved 17 January 2021.
  11. ^ Kemp, John (25 February 2009). "Pain and Evil". Philosophy. 29 (108): 13. doi:10.1017/S0031819100022105. Retrieved 8 January 2021.
  12. ^ Committee on Advancing Pain Research, Care, and Education, Institute of Medicine (US). "Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research". NCBI Bookshelf. National Academies Press (US). Retrieved 21 February 2021.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  13. ^ "Reviews". The Humane Review. E. Bell. 2 (5–8): 374. 1901.
  14. ^ Marcus G. Singer, Marcus G. Singer (April 2004). "The Concept of Evil". Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. 79 (308): 185–214. doi:10.1017/S0031819104000233. JSTOR 3751971.
  15. ^ a b Garrard, Eve (April 2002). "Evil as an Explanatory Concept" (Pdf). The Monist. Oxford University Press. 85 (2): 320–336. doi:10.5840/monist200285219. JSTOR 27903775.
  16. ^ a b Wierenga, Edward (2020). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Omniscience". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 22 February 2021.
  17. ^ Wierenga, Edward R. (1989). The Nature of God: An Inquiry Into Divine Attributes. Cornell University Press. pp. 202–205. ISBN 9780801488504.
  18. ^ Hasker, William (2004). Providence, Evil and the Openness of God. Routledge. ISBN 9780415329491.
  19. ^ a b Hoffman, Joshua; Rosenkrantz, Gary. "Omnipotence". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Retrieved 22 February 2021.
  20. ^ Haji, Ishtiyaque (2009). "A Conundrum Concerning Creation". Sophia. 48 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1007/s11841-008-0062-7. S2CID 144025073.
  21. ^ Honderich, Ted (2005). "theodicy". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7. John Hick, for example, proposes a theodicy, while Alvin Plantinga formulates a defence. The idea of human free will often appears in a both of these strategies, but in different ways.
  22. ^ For more explanation regarding contradictory propositions and possible worlds, see Plantinga's "God, Freedom and Evil" (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 1974), 24–29.
  23. ^ a b c Peter Harvey (2013). An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices. Cambridge University Press. pp. 37, 141. ISBN 978-0-521-85942-4.
  24. ^ Gregory A. Boyd (2003), Is God to Blame? (InterVarsity Press), ISBN 978-0830823949, pp. 55–58
  25. ^ Peter van Inwagen (2008). The Problem of Evil. Oxford University Press. pp. 6–10, 22, 26–30. ISBN 978-0-19-954397-7.
  26. ^ Linda Edwards (2001). A Brief Guide to Beliefs: Ideas, Theologies, Mysteries, and Movements. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-664-22259-8.
  27. ^ John Swinton (2007). Raging with Compassion: Pastoral Responses to the Problem of Evil. Wm. B. Eerdmans. pp. 33–35, 119, 143. ISBN 978-0-8028-2997-9.
  28. ^ Susan Neiman (2004). Evil in Modern Thought: An Alternative History of Philosophy. Princeton University Press. pp. 119–20, 318–22. ISBN 978-0691117928.
  29. ^ Micha de Winter (2012). Socialization and Civil Society. Springer. pp. 69–70. ISBN 978-94-6209-092-7.
  30. ^ The formulation may have been wrongly attributed to Epicurus by Lactantius, who, from his Christian perspective, regarded Epicurus as an atheist. According to Mark Joseph Larrimore, (2001), The Problem of Evil, pp. xix–xxi. Wiley-Blackwell. According to Reinhold F. Glei, it is settled that the argument of theodicy is from an academical source which is not only not epicurean, but even anti-epicurean. Reinhold F. Glei, Et invidus et inbecillus. Das angebliche Epikurfragment bei Laktanz, De ira dei 13, 20–21, in: Vigiliae Christianae 42 (1988), pp. 47–58
  31. ^ Hickson, Michael W. (2014). "A Brief History of Problems of Evil". In McBrayer, Justin P.; Howard-Snyder, Daniel (eds.). The Blackwell Companion to The Problem of Evil. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 6–7. ISBN 978-1-118-60797-8.
  32. ^ a b Rowe, William L. (1979). "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism". American Philosophical Quarterly. 16: 336–37.
  33. ^ Draper, Paul (1989). "Pain and Pleasure: An Evidential Problem for Theists". Noûs. 23 (3): 331–50. doi:10.2307/2215486. JSTOR 2215486.
  34. ^ a b Nicola Hoggard Creegan (2013). Animal Suffering and the Problem of Evil. Oxford University Press. pp. 44–55. ISBN 978-0-19-993185-9.
  35. ^ Michael Murray (2008). Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering. Oxford University Press. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-19-155327-1.
  36. ^ a b Michael J. Almeida (2012). Freedom, God, and Worlds. Oxford University Press. pp. 193–94. ISBN 978-0-19-964002-7.
  37. ^ Michael Murray (2008). Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering. Oxford University Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-19-155327-1.
  38. ^ Diogenes Allen (1990). Marilyn McCord Adams and Robert Merrihew Adams (ed.). The Problem of Evil. Oxford University Press. pp. 204–06. ISBN 978-0-19-824866-8.
  39. ^ William L. Rowe (2007). William L. Rowe on Philosophy of Religion: Selected Writings. Ashgate. pp. 61–64 (the fawn's suffering example). ISBN 978-0-7546-5558-9.
  40. ^ Michael J. Almeida (2012). Freedom, God, and Worlds. Oxford University Press. pp. 194–95, for the complete context and alternate formulations see pages 194–217. ISBN 978-0-19-964002-7.
  41. ^ Cacodaemony and Devilish Isomorphism, King-Farlow, J. (1978), Analysis, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 59–61.
  42. ^ Dittman, Volker and Tremblay, François "The Immorality of Theodicies". StrongAtheism.net. 2004.
  43. ^ Stretton, Dean (1999). "The Moral Argument from Evil". The Secular Web. Retrieved 10 April 2014.
  44. ^ Rachels, James (1997). "God and Moral Autonomy". Retrieved 10 April 2014.
  45. ^ Bradley, Raymond (1999). "A Moral Argument for Atheism". The Secular Web. Retrieved 10 April 2014.
  46. ^ a b c Plantinga, Alvin (6 December 2012). Tomberlin, H.; Tomberlin, James E.; van Inwagen, P. (eds.). Alvin Plantinga "Self Profile". Springer Netherlands. pp. 33, 38. ISBN 9789400952232.
  47. ^ Swinburne, Richard. (1998). Providence and the Problem of Evil. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 16;28-29.
  48. ^ a b c d e Anderson, A. K. (2005). "Evil and the God of narrative: Four types of contemporary Christian theodicy". Graduate Theological Union.
  49. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Russell, Robert John (2018). "Southgate's Compound Only-Way Evolutionary Theodicy: Deep Appreciation and Further Directions". Zygon Journal of Religion and Science. 53 (3): 711–726. doi:10.1111/zygo.12438.
  50. ^ a b c Southgate, Christopher (2008). The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution, and the Problem of Evil. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 9780664230906.
  51. ^ Holmes Rolston III, Holmes Rolston III (1994). "Does Nature Need To Be Redeemed?". Zygon Journal of Religion and Science. 29 (2): 205–229. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1994.tb00661.x. hdl:10217/36766.
  52. ^ Rolston III, Holmes (2018). "Redeeming A Cruciform Nature". Zygon Journal of Religion and Science. 53 (3): 739–751. doi:10.1111/zygo.12428. hdl:10217/196986.
  53. ^ Sollereder, Bethany N. (2018). God, Evolution, and Animal Suffering: Theodicy without a Fall. Routledge. ISBN 9780429881855.
  54. ^ Linda Edwards, A Brief Guide (Westminster John Knox, 2001), 62.
  55. ^ Card, Claudia (2005). The Atrocity Paradigm A Theory of Evil. Oxford University Press. p. 5. ISBN 9780195181265.
  56. ^ a b c Williams, Patricia A. (2001). Doing Without Adam and Eve Sociobiology and Original Sin. Fortress Press. ISBN 9781451415438.
  57. ^ Polkinghorne, John (2003). Belief in God in an Age of Science. New Haven, CT: Yale Nota Bene. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-300-09949-2. and also See esp. ch. 5 of his Science and Providence. ISBN 978-0-87773-490-1
  58. ^ Richard Swinburne in "Is There a God?" writes that "the operation of natural laws producing evils gives humans knowledge (if they choose to seek it) of how to bring about such evils themselves. Observing you can catch some disease by the operation of natural processes gives me the power either to use those processes to give that disease to other people, or through negligence to allow others to catch it, or to take measures to prevent others from catching the disease." In this way, "it increases the range of significant choice... The actions which natural evil makes possible are ones which allow us to perform at our best and interact with our fellows at the deepest level" (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996) 108–09.
  59. ^ Bradley Hanson, Introduction to Christian Theology (Fortress, 1997), 100.
  60. ^ Wildman, William J. (2007). Murphy, Nancey C.; Russell, Robert J. (eds.). "INCONGRUOUS GOODNESS, PERILOUS BEAUTY, DISCONCERTING TRUTH: ULTIMATE REALITY AND SUFFERING IN NATURE". Physics and Cosmology: Scientific Perspectives on the Problem of Natural Evil: 267–294.
  61. ^ Tracy, Thomas F. (2008). "Evolutionary Theologies and Divine Action". Theology and Science. 6 (1): 107–116. doi:10.1080/14746700701806106. S2CID 144846652.
  62. ^ a b c d e f Polkinghorne, John C. (2009). "Evolution and Providence: A Response to Thomas Tracy". Theology and Science. 7 (4): 317–322. doi:10.1080/14746700903239445. S2CID 144281968.
  63. ^ Francisco J. Ayala, Francisco J. Ayala (2007). Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion (illustrated, reprint ed.). National Academies Press. ISBN 9780309102315.
  64. ^ Polkinghorne, John C. (2005). Quarks, Chaos & Christianity Questions to Science and Religion. Crossroad Publishing Company. p. 4. ISBN 9780824524067.
  65. ^ Kropf, Richard W. (2004). Evil and Evolution: A Theodicy. Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 9781725211445.
  66. ^ a b c d e Gregory A. Boyd, Is God to Blame? (InterVarsity Press, 2003) ISBN 978-0830823949, pp. 55–58, 69–70, 76, 96.
  67. ^ a b c d Michael Lacewing (2014). Philosophy for AS: Epistemology and Philosophy of Religion. Routledge. pp. 239–42. ISBN 978-1-317-63583-3.
  68. ^ a b c d Plantinga, Alvin (1977). God, freedom, and evil. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 9780802817310.
  69. ^ a b J. L. Mackie, J. L. Mackie (1955). "Evil and Omnipotence". Mind. Oxford University Press. 64 (254): 200–212. doi:10.1093/mind/LXIV.254.200. JSTOR 2251467.
  70. ^ a b c d e Plantinga, Alvin (1978). The Nature of Necessity. Clarendon Press. ISBN 9780191037177.
  71. ^ Meister, Chad (2009). Introducing Philosophy of Religion. Taylor & Francis. p. 134. ISBN 9781134141791.
  72. ^ Howard-Snyder, Daniel; O'Leary-Hawthorne, John (1998). "Transworld Sanctity and Plantinga's Free Will Defense". International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 44 (1): 1–21. doi:10.1023/A:1003210017171. ISSN 1572-8684.
  73. ^ Alston, William P. (1991). "The Inductive Argument from Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition". Philosophical Perspectives. 5: 29–67. doi:10.2307/2214090. ISSN 1758-2245. JSTOR 2214090. S2CID 16744068.
  74. ^ Mackie, John Leslie. The Miracle of Theism Arguments for and Against the Existence of God. Clarendon Press. p. 154. ISBN 9780198246824. Since this defense is formally [that is, logically] possible, and its principle involves no real abandonment of our ordinary view of the opposition between good and evil, we can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another. But whether this offers a real solution of the problem is another question.
  75. ^ Rowe, William (1979). "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism". American Philosophical Quarterly. 16 (4): 335–341. ISSN 0003-0481. JSTOR 20009775.p=335
  76. ^ Oppy, Graham (2006). Arguing About Gods. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-86386-5.pp=262–263
  77. ^ Beebe, James R. (2005). "Logical Problem of Evil". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002. Retrieved 21 September 2009.
  78. ^ Marilyn McCord Adams, Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God (Cornell University, 2000), 203.
  79. ^ Marilyn McCord Adams, Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God (Melbourne University Press, 1999), 26.
  80. ^ C. S. Lewis writes: "We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void; nay, if the principle were carried out to its logical conclusion, evil thoughts would be impossible, for the cerebral matter which we use in thinking would refuse its task when we attempted to frame them." C.S. Lewis The Problem of Pain (HarperCollins, 1996) pp. 24–25
  81. ^ Michael Tooley, "The Problem of Evil", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  82. ^ "The Two Types of Evil". Accessed 10 July 2014.
  83. ^ a b Plantinga, Alvin (1974). God, Freedom, and Evil. Harper & Row. p. 58. ISBN 978-0-8028-1731-0.
  84. ^ Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Eerdmans, 1989), 58.
  85. ^ Bradley Hanson, Introduction to Christian Theology (Fortress, 1997), 99.
  86. ^ Johnson, David Kyle (2012). "The Failure of Plantinga's Solution to the Logical Problem of Natural Evil". Philo. 15 (2): 145–157. doi:10.5840/Philo20121528.
  87. ^ David Ray Griffin (1991). Evil Revisited: Responses and Reconsiderations. State University of New York Press. pp. 94–95. ISBN 978-0-7914-0612-0.
  88. ^ John S. Feinberg (2004). The Many Faces of Evil (Revised and Expanded Edition): Theological Systems and the Problems of Evil. Crossway. pp. 94–95. ISBN 978-1-4335-1727-3.
  89. ^ a b Nicola Hoggard Creegan (2013). Animal Suffering and the Problem of Evil. Oxford University Press. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-19-993185-9.
  90. ^ a b c d e f Scott, Mark. S. M. (2015). Pathways in Theodicy: An Introduction to the Problem of Evil (illustrated, reprint ed.). Augsburg Fortress Publishers. ISBN 9781451464702.
  91. ^ Farley, Wendy (1990). Tragic Vision and Divine Compassion A Contemporary Theodicy. Westminster/John Knox Press. p. 118. ISBN 9780664250966.
  92. ^ Griffin, David Ray (1991). Evil Revisited Responses and Reconsiderations. State University of New York Press. pp. 169–179. ISBN 9780791406120.
  93. ^ a b c d Frankenberry, Nancy (June 1981). "Some Problems in Process Theodicy". Religious Studies. Cambridge University Press. 17 (2): 179–197. doi:10.1017/S0034412500000962. JSTOR 20005735.
  94. ^ Griffin, David Ray (2004). God, Power, and Evil A Process Theodicy. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. pp. 300, 308. ISBN 9780664229061.
  95. ^ Trent Dougherty; Justin P. McBrayer (2014). Skeptical Theism: New Essays. Oxford University Press. pp. 265–66. ISBN 978-0-19-966118-3.
  96. ^ James Franklin Harris (2002). Analytic Philosophy of Religion. Springer. pp. 243–44. ISBN 978-1-4020-0530-5.
  97. ^ Whitney, B. "Theodicy". Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Retrieved 10 December 2014.
  98. ^ a b Dougherty, Trent (2018). "Skeptical Theism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2 February 2021.
  99. ^ Ian Wilks (2014). "Chapter 31, for context see Chapters 29 and 30". In Justin P. McBrayer and Daniel Howard-Snyder (ed.). The Blackwell Companion to The Problem of Evil. Wiley. ISBN 978-1-118-60797-8.
  100. ^ Rowe, William L. (2006). "Friendly Atheism, Skeptical Theism, and the Problem of Evil". International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 59 (2): 79–92. doi:10.1007/s11153-005-6178-6. JSTOR 40023383. S2CID 170120784.
  101. ^ a b c d Bergmann, Michael (2009). Flint, Thomas; Rea, Michael (eds.). "17. Skeptical Theism and the Problem of Evil" (PDF). Oxford Handbook to Philosophical Theology. Oxford University Press: 374–401. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199289202.003.0018. ISBN 9780199289202.
  102. ^ Almeida, Michael J.; Oppy, Graham (2003). "Sceptical Theism and Evidential Arguments from Evil". Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 81 (4): 496. doi:10.1080/713659758. S2CID 17867179.
  103. ^ a b c John Hick (2016). Evil and the God of Love. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 201–16. ISBN 978-1-349-18048-6.
  104. ^ Svendsen, Lars Fr. H. (2010). A Philosophy of Evil. Dalkey Archive Press. p. 51. ISBN 9781564785718.
  105. ^ a b Kane, G. Stanley (1975). "The Failure of Soul-Making Theodicy". International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 6 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1007/BF00136996. JSTOR 40021034. S2CID 170214854.
  106. ^ a b c Hick, John (1966). Evil and the God of Love. London: Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-06-063902-0.:325; 336
  107. ^ a b Nicola Hoggard Creegan (2013). Animal Suffering and the Problem of Evil. Oxford University Press. p. 185 with footnote 3. ISBN 978-0-19-993184-2.
  108. ^ Tedeschi, Richard G.; Park, Crystal L.; Calhoun, Lawrence G., eds. (1998). Posttraumatic Growth: Positive Changes in the Aftermath of Crisis. Routledge. pp. 99, 117. ISBN 9781135689803.
  109. ^ a b c Wexler, Bruce E. (2008). Brain and Culture Neurobiology, Ideology, and Social Change. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262265140.
  110. ^ Kolb, Bryan (2013). Brain Plasticity and Behavior. Psychology Press. ISBN 9781134784141.
  111. ^ a b Horowitz, D. S.; Van Eeden, R. (2015). "Exploring the learnings derived from catalytic experiences in a leadership context". SA Journal of Human Resource Management/SA Tydskrif vir Menslikehulpbronbestuur. 13 (1).
  112. ^ McAdams, Dan P. (2013). The Redemptive Self: Stories Americans Live By (Revised and Expanded ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199969760.
  113. ^ Badaracco Jr., Joseph L. (2016). Defining Moments When Managers Must Choose Between Right and Right. Harvard Business Review Press. ISBN 9781633692404.
  114. ^ Bennis, Warren G.; Thomas, Robert J. (2002). Geeks and Geezers: How Era, Values, and Defining Moments Shape Leaders - How Tough Times Shape Good Leaders. Harvard Business School Press.
  115. ^ Boyatzis, Richard E.; McKee, Annie (2005). Resonant Leadership: Renewing Yourself and Connecting with Others Through Mindfulness, Hope, and Compassion (illustrated ed.). Harvard Business Press. ISBN 9781591395638.
  116. ^ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Problem of Evil", James R. Beebe
  117. ^ Chesterton, G. K. (2009). Saint Francis of Assisi. Floating Press. ISBN 9781775413776.
  118. ^ Allan, Leslie (28 July 2015). "The Problem of Evil" (PDF). Rational Realm. Retrieved 12 September 2018.
  119. ^ Mesle, C. Robert (1986). "The Problem of Genuine Evil: A Critique of John Hick's Theodicy". The Journal of Religion. 66 (4): 413. doi:10.1086/487442. JSTOR 1202728. S2CID 170193070.
  120. ^ Cone, James H. (1997). God of the Oppressed. Orbis Books. ISBN 9781608330386.
  121. ^ a b Adams, Marilyn McCord (2000). Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God (reprint ed.). Cornell University Press. pp. 164–168. ISBN 9780801486869.
  122. ^ Soelle, Dorothee (2016). Thinking about God. Wipf & Stock Publishers. p. 134. ISBN 9781498295765.
  123. ^ a b c Eleonore Stump (2008). Daniel Howard-Snyder (ed.). The Evidential Argument from Evil. Indiana University Press. pp. 49–52. ISBN 978-0-253-11409-9.
  124. ^ a b Stewart Goetz (2008). Freedom, Teleology, and Evil. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 139–47. ISBN 978-1-4411-7183-2.
  125. ^ Benjamin W. McCraw; Robert Arp (2015). The Problem of Evil: New Philosophical Directions. Lexington. pp. 132–33. ISBN 978-1-4985-1208-4.
  126. ^ If God Is Good: Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil, published by Random House of Canada, 2009, p. 294; Quote: Without this eternal perspective, we assume that people who die young, who have handicaps, who suffer poor health, who don't get married or have children, or who don't do this or that will miss out on the best life has to offer. But the theology underlying these assumptions have a fatal flaw. It presumes that our present Earth, bodies, culture, relationships and lives are all there is... [but] Heaven will bring far more than compensation for our present sufferings.
  127. ^ "Ordinary Morality Implies Atheism", European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 1:2 (2009), 107–26, Quote: "... may stem from imagining an ecstatic or forgiving state of mind on the part of the blissful: in heaven no one bears grudges, even the most horrific earthly suffering is as nothing compared to infinite bliss, all past wrongs are forgiven. But "are forgiven" doesn’t mean "were justified"; the blissful person’s disinclination to dwell on his or her earthly suffering doesn’t imply that a perfect being was justified in permitting the suffering all along. By the same token, our ordinary moral practice recognizes a legitimate complaint about child abuse even if, as adults, its victims should happen to be on drugs that make them uninterested in complaining. Even if heaven swamps everything, it doesn’t thereby justify everything."
  128. ^ Nicholas Jolley (2014). Larry M. Jorgensen and Samuel Newlands (ed.). New Essays on Leibniz's Theodicy. Oxford University Press. pp. 64–68. ISBN 978-0-19-966003-2.
  129. ^ Andrew Chignell; Terence Cuneo; Matthew C. Halteman (2015). Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments About the Ethics of Eating. Routledge. p. 199. ISBN 978-1-136-57807-6.
  130. ^ a b c Joseph Francis Kelly (2002). The Problem of Evil in the Western Tradition. Liturgical Press. p. 42. ISBN 978-0-8146-5104-9.
  131. ^ a b Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, Second Edition, Baker Academic, 2007, pp. 445–46.
  132. ^ a b R. Jeffery (2007). Evil and International Relations: Human Suffering in an Age of Terror. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-230-61035-4.
  133. ^ Joseph Francis Kelly (2002). The Problem of Evil in the Western Tradition. Liturgical Press. pp. 42–43. ISBN 978-0-8146-5104-9.
  134. ^ a b c d e Mann, William E. (2001). "Augustine on evil and original sin". In Stump, Eleonore; Meconi, David Vincent (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to Augustine (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 40–48. ISBN 978-1107025332.
  135. ^ Jairzinho Lopes Pereira (2013). Augustine of Hippo and Martin Luther on Original Sin and Justification of the Sinner. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. pp. 54–55. ISBN 978-3-647-55063-3.
  136. ^ a b Jairzinho Lopes Pereira (2013). Augustine of Hippo and Martin Luther on Original Sin and Justification of the Sinner. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. p. 56 with footnote 25. ISBN 978-3-647-55063-3.
  137. ^ Todd C. Calder (2007), Is the Privation Theory of Evil Dead?, American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 371–81
  138. ^ a b Stephen Gottschalk (1978). Christian Science. University of California Press. pp. 65–69. ISBN 978-0-520-03718-2.
  139. ^ Millard J. Erickson (1998). Christian Theology. Baker Academic. pp. 446–47. ISBN 978-0-8010-2182-4.
  140. ^ a b Paul Russell (2016). The Oxford Handbook of Hume. Oxford University Press. pp. 625–32. ISBN 978-0-19-974284-4.
  141. ^ C. S. Lewis Mere Christianity Touchstone:New York, 1980 pp. 45–46
  142. ^ Graham Oppy (2006), Arguing about Gods, pp. 17, 296. Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521863864
  143. ^ Daniel Howard-Snyder (2008). The Evidential Argument from Evil. Indiana University Press. pp. 305–06. ISBN 978-0-253-11409-9.
  144. ^ a b c Bryan Frances (2013). Gratuitous Suffering and the Problem of Evil: A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge. pp. 110–23. ISBN 978-0-415-66295-6.
  145. ^ Deism, Encyclopædia Britannica
  146. ^ Lane, William C. (January 2010). "Leibniz's Best World Claim Restructured". American Philosophical Journal. 47 (1): 57–84. Retrieved 9 March 2014.
  147. ^ a b Justin P. McBrayer; Daniel Howard-Snyder (2014). The Blackwell Companion to The Problem of Evil. Wiley. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-118-60797-8.
  148. ^ Hospers, John. An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis. 3rd Ed. Routledge, 1990, p. 310.
  149. ^ Lactantius. "Caput XIII" (PDF). De Ira Dei (in Latin). p. 121. At the Documenta Catholica Omnia.
  150. ^ Rev. Roberts, Alexander; Donaldson, James, eds. (1871). "On the Anger of God. Chapter XIII". The works of Lactantius. Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Vol XXII. II. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, George Street. p. 28. At the Internet Archive.
  151. ^ Hume, David. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Project Gutenberg. Retrieved 12 January 2012.
  152. ^ Malthus T.R. 1798. An essay on the principle of population. Oxford World's Classics reprint. p158
  153. ^ Thomas Malthus (1798), An essay on the principle of population, Oxford Classics, p. 123
  154. ^ a b Making the Task of Theodicy Impossible?, William Dembski (2003), Baylor University, p. 11
  155. ^ See Kant's essay, "Concerning the Possibility of a Theodicy and the Failure of All Previous Philosophical Attempts in the Field" (1791). Stephen Palmquist explains why Kant refuses to solve the problem of evil in "Faith in the Face of Evil", Appendix VI of Kant's Critical Religion (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000).
  156. ^ Making the Task of Theodicy Impossible?, William Dembski (2003), Baylor University, p. 12
  157. ^ Problem of Evil, Paul Brians, Washington State University
  158. ^ Stephen D. O'Leary (1998). Arguing the Apocalypse. Oxford University Press. pp. 34–35. ISBN 978-0-19-535296-2., Quote: "As Max Weber notes, however, it is in monotheistic religions that this problem becomes acute."
  159. ^ Arthur Herman, The problem of evil and Indian thought, 2nd Edition, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 81-20807537, pp. 5 with Part II and III of the book

Further reading

  • Adams, Marilyn McCord and Robert M. Adams, eds. The Problem of Evil. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. The standard anthology in English. Contains classic papers by recent philosophers of religion in the analytic tradition. Deals with both the logical problem and the evidential problem.
  • Adams, Marilyn McCord. "Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God." Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999.
  • Adams, Robert M. "Must God Create the Best?" in "The Virtue of Faith and Other Essays in Philosophical Theology". New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
  • Adams, Robert M. "Existence, Self-Interest and the Problem of Evil" in "The Virtue of Faith and Other Essays in Philosophical Theology". New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
  • Aquinas, Thomas. On Evil (De Malo), trans. Regan; ed. Brian Davies. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003.
  • Beebe, James R. (2006). "The Logical Problem of Evil". In Fieser, James; Bradley, Dowden (eds.). The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Boyd, Gregory A. (2003). Is God to Blame?. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0-8308-2394-9.
  • Carver, Thomas N. (1908). "The Economic Basis of the Problem of Evil," Harvard Theological Review, 1(1), pp. 97111.
  • Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov, 1881. Chapters "Rebellion" and "The Grand Inquisitor"
  • Howard-Snyder, Daniel, ed. The Evidential Problem of Evil. Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indian University Press, 1996. Probably the best collection of essays in English on the evidential argument from evil. Includes most of the major players on the topic.
  • Mackie, J. L. (1982). The Miracle of Theism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-06-063902-0.
  • Hume, David. Dialogues on Natural Religion (Parts X and XI), ed. Richard Pokin. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1980.
  • Leibniz, Gottfried. (1710). Theodicy.
  • Leibniz, Gottfried. (1765). "A Vindication of God's Justice...", ("Causa Dei") trans. Paul Schrecker and Anne Martin Schrecker. New York: MacMillan, 1965.
  • Murray, Michael (1998). "Leibniz on the Problem of Evil". In Zalta, Edward N (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Ormsby, Eric. Theodicy in Islamic Thought (Princeton University Press, 1984)
  • Palmquist, Stephen (2000). "Faith in the Face of Evil (Appendix VI)". Kant's Critical Religion. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-1333-6.
  • Plantinga, Alvin (1974). The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bibcode:1974nane.book.....P. ISBN 978-0-19-824414-1.
  • Plantinga, Alvin (1977). God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-1731-0.
  • Rowe, William L. (1990). "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism" in The Problem of Evil, ed. Marilyn McCord Adams and Robert M. Adams. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Stewart, Matthew. The Courtier and the Heretic: Leibniz, Spinoza and the Fate of God in the Modern World. W.W. Norton, 2005.
  • Streminger, Gerhard (1992). Gottes Güte und die Übel der Welt. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 978-3-16-145889-7.
  • Swinburne, Richard (1997). The Coherence of Theism. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-824070-9.
  • Tooley, Michael (2002). "The Problem of Evil". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Trakakis, Nick (2006). "Evidential Problem of Evil". In Fieser, James; Bradley, Dowden (eds.). The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Van Inwagen, Peter. (2006). The Problem of Evil. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Wilson, William McF.; Hartt, Julian N. (2004). "Farrer's Theodicy". In Hein, David; Henderson, Edward (eds.). Captured by the Crucified: The Practical Theology of Austin Farrer. New York: T & T Clark International. pp. 100–18. ISBN 978-0-567-02510-4.
  • Jones, Constance; Ryan, James D. (2006), Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Infobase, ISBN 9780816075645
  • Sharma, B. N. Krishnamurti (1962). Philosophy of Śrī Madhvācārya. Motilal Banarsidass (2014 Reprint). ISBN 978-8120800687.
  • Sharma, B. N. Krishnamurti (2000). A History of the Dvaita School of Vedānta and Its Literature, 3rd Edition. Motilal Banarsidass (2008 Reprint). ISBN 978-8120815759.
  • Sharma, Chandradhar (1994). A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 978-81-208-0365-7.
  • Sarma, Deepak (2000). "Is Jesus a Hindu? S.C. Vasu and Multiple Madhva Misrepresentations". Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies. 13. doi:10.7825/2164-6279.1228.
  • Sarma, Deepak (2005). Epistemologies and the Limitations of Philosophical Enquiry: Doctrine in Madhva Vedanta. Routledge.
  • Voltaire. (1759) Candide. Many editions. Voltaire's caustic response to Leibniz' doctrine that this is the best possible world.

External links


This page was last updated at 2021-03-19 23:27, update this pageView original page

All information on this site, including but not limited to text, pictures, etc., are reproduced on Wikipedia (wikipedia.org), following the . Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License


If the math, chemistry, physics and other formulas on this page are not displayed correctly, please useFirefox or Safari