Home » General relativity » Moral Evil Vs Natural Evil Essay

Moral Evil Vs Natural Evil Essay

I believe that God doesn’t exist due to the fact that if there is a supposed omni-benevolent God then why is the world is full of so much evil and suffering? Evil and suffering comes in two forms Moral evil and Natural evil. Moral evil is caused by humans using their free will, for example, crimes such as murder, burglary and war. Natural evil is suffering that has not been caused by humans such as earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, cancers and so on and are therefore not caused by humans. These natural evils can have catastrophic results with huge loss of life and human suffering.

It is be cause of this evil and suffering in the world that I began to reject my belief in God. If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), he must be able to remove evil and suffering from the world. And if God is Omni-benevolent (all-good), he must want to remove evil and suffering from the world. Which implies that if God does exist, than all evil and suffering in the world won’t happen. Either God is not all-good and powerful or he does not exist. If God knows everything (omniscient), he must have known that evil and suffering would come from the creation of the universe.

So he should have created the universe in a way that avoided vil and suffering. Most believers in God believe that he is omnipotent, omni- benevolent and omniscient. So the existence of evil and suffering challenges their beliefs. An example of people having their religion and belief in God questioned is recently in Saudi Arabia. BBC news reported it saying; ‘At least 717 people have been killed in a stampede at the annual Hajj pilgrimage. Saudi Arabia’s civil defence directorate said, as the death toll continued to rise, at least 863 other pilgrims were injured in Thursday’s stampede.

It took place in Mina, on the outskirts of the holy city of Mecca, where housands of people come every year to pray and honour their God’. The question this raises is how could God, an all loving person, allow something like this to happen? The people are praying to him and at least 720 people are now dead and many more injured. These were good people, so why would he let this happen? For thousands of years theologians and philosophers have developed elaborate theodicies-responses to the argument from evil which retain belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God.

According to the unknown purpose defence (UPD), God allows apparently pointless suffering for some eason that we can’t comprehend. The free will defence (FWD) maintains that God has to allow the existence of some evil in order to preserve human free will. Finally, the soul-making theodicy (SMT) contends that God allows some evil because it builds a positive character in the victims or in others which outweighs the negative value of the evil itself. There are several problems with each of these theodicies.

For example, the UPD faces the obvious objection that if you have no idea what reason God has for allowing evil, then for all you know there is no justifiable reason at all for an all-good God to allow it. And even if the FWD and SMT were successful, they would still leave much apparently gratuitous evil unexplained. But couldn’t God have created a world without evil? Let’s take a look at a few of the options. If God had not created anything, there would be no evil. But is nothing better than something?

Hardly. This would be a world without morality. What if God created a world where people could not choose? God could force everyone to stop before they were able to carry out evil behaviour. But is such a world where freedom does not exist good? As William Rowe points out, when a fawn burns to death in a orest fire and no human being ever knows about it, this apparently unnecessary evil neither preserves human free will nor builds the character of human beings. So what is the point in evil and suffering?

There isn’t one, and this is why I do not think God exists as there is no apparent reason for an Omni- benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient person to do such things. As Douglas Adams said, I really do not believe that there is a god – in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It’s easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal hat I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously. ‘ This quote is very true for me as there is no solid evidence that God exists.

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) offers a pragmatic reason for believing in God: even under the assumption that God’s existence is unlikely, the potential benefits of believing are so vast as to make betting on theism rational. The super-dominance form of the argument conveys the basic Pascalian idea, the expectations argument refines it, and the dominating expectations argument gives a more sophisticated version still. So if Blaise Pascal did ay this and Pascalians believe in this, why would God let someone who’s gambling of the existence let them get all the pleasures of Heaven and the afterlife.

People who pray and people where religion plays a big part in their life get to go to Heaven and have the afterlife, Pascal’s theory is making a massive shortcut on this. And why would a all knowing God let this happen? And there is also a scientific view to this as well: This is the principle of what happened at the beginning of the universe. When the big bang produced a vast amount of positive energy, it simultaneously created the same amount of negative energy. In this way the positive and the negative energy add up to 0. So where is all this negative energy today? It’s in space.

This may sound odd but according to the laws of nature concerning gravity and motion, laws that are among to oldest in science. Space itself is a vast store of negative energy, enough to ensure that it adds up to 0. The endless web of billions upon billions of galaxies each pulling on one and other with the force of gravity, acts like a giant storage device. The universe Is like an enormous battery storing negative energy. the positive side of things, the mass and the energy we see today is like the hill the orresponding hole or negative side of things is spread throughout space.

So what does that mean on our quest to find out if there is a God? It means that if the universe adds up to nothing, then you don’t need a God to create it. Since we know that the positive and negative in the universe adds up to 0, all we have to do now is work out what or dare I say who triggered the whole process in the first place. What could cause the spontaneous appearance of a universe? at first, it seems a baffling problem. after all, in our daily lives things don’t just simply materialise out of the blue. you cant just click your finger nd summon up a cup of coffee when you feel like it.

You have to make it out of other stuff like coffee beans, water, maybe some milk and sugar. But travel down into this coffee cup, through the milk particles, down to the atomic level, and right down into the sub -atomic level and you enter a world where conjuring something out of nothing is possible. At least for a short while. That’s because at this scale, particles, such as protons, behave according to the laws of nature we call quantum mechanics. And they really can appear at random, stick around for a while, and then vanish to reappear somewhere else.

Since we know the universe itself was once very small, smaller than a proton in fact. This means something quite remarkable, it means the universe itself, in all of its minds complexity, could simply of popped into existence, without violating the known laws of nature. From that moment on, vast amounts of energy were released as space itself expanded. A place to store all the negative energy needed to balance the books. But of course the critical question is raised again. Did god create the quantum law that allowed the big bang to occur. in a nutshell, do we need a God to make the Big Bang go bang? no.

I hink science has some more compelling answers to prove that a creator is not needed. this explanation is made possible by something strange about the principle of cause and effect. our everyday experience makes us convinced that everything that happens, must be caused by something that occurred earlier in time. so it’s natural for us to assume that something, perhaps God, must have caused the universe to come into existence. but when we’re talking about the universe as a whole, that isn’t necessarily so. let me explain. imagine a river, flowing down a mountainside. What caused the river? well, perhaps the rain. in that fell earlier on the mountain. but then, what caused the rain? a good answer would be the sun. the sun that shone on the ocean and lifted water vapour up into the sky to form clouds. okay, so what caused the sun to shine? well, If we look inside, we see the process called fusion, in which hydrogen atoms form to make helium atoms releasing vast quantities of energy.

So, where did the hydrogen come from. answer, the big bang. but here’s the crucial bit, the laws of nature tells us that not only can the universe have popped into existence like a proton, but it is possible that nothing caused the big bang. thing. the explanation lies back with a theories of Einstein. something wonderful happened to time at the big bang, time itself began. to explain this, consider a black hole floating in space. a typical black hole is a star that has collapsed in on itself. its so massive, that no even light can escape which is why its almost perfectly black. its gravitational field is so powerful, it doesn’t only warp and distort light, but also, time. inside a black hole, time doesn’t exist. and that’s exactly what happened at the start of the universe.

The moment of the big bang, the universe is so small that in effect, it’s a single infinitesimally Small, infinitesimally dense black Hole. You cant get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before ng. For me, this means that there is no possibility that there’s a creator, as there was no time for one to exist. As Richard Dawkins said, ‘An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: ‘I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.

I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. ‘ This quote is saying that if there is no explanation that something exist for example why the sun comes up, than saying that God did it is people reaction as they need something to explain why things happen, but Richard Dawkins, and Darwin is saying that waiting for a better explanation is better than making one up with no proof.

All these reason sum up why I do not believe in God. I am 100% sure that God Doesn’t exist as It doesn’t make any sense to me. It doesn’t make sense that a person is living out of universe and controlling everything that happens. And after you die, you go to a place of paradise. But this isn’t a good enough reason for some people. Physiologically as Stephan Hawking said,’ There is no aspect of reality beyond the human mind. ‘

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this essay please select a referencing style below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.