God and Evil: Philosophical and Logical Aspects

The problem of God and evil in the philosophical and logical dimensions prop up against the facts concerned with contemporary world and disasters which happen in it and God, as a protector from such negative factors. The statements which are imposed in premises characterize the wholeness of the problem with points to logical chain of the discourse. The concept of conclusion is outlined accordingly, but more glimpses should be made at the philosophical debate about evil manifestation in the world, as a result of non-existence of God. In this respect more attention will be grabbed on the weaknesses about the discussion prescribed.

First of all, one should concentrate on the main characteristics of God and evil. Here the main words were concerned with omniscience and omnipotence of God and parallel assumption about evil’s priority. The description of the analyzed syllogism has some features which need deeper discussion. By this one should understand that logic is an exact science. This is why there should be enough arguments to make applicable assumptions. Hence, the points of premises have a logical flow of arguments and assertions which are supposed to be right up to the seventh point: “Therefore, God doesn’t exist”.

The thing is that this very assertion is lack of prerequisites for its proof. In other words, there is a mismatch with syllogistic coloring of premises in their sequence. Furthermore, one looking at it can guess about the framework of why such assumption is chosen, in fact. Here comes another assumption that one element was missed in the line of premises. For example, it could be reflected as follows:

  • If evil is prior to God, then it dominates in the universe.
  • If evil dominates in the world, then in any moment it can liquidate God.
  • God is immortal and omnipotent, then existence of both God and evil is essential.
  • With omnipotence and omniscience of God evil is still present in the world.
  • Evil is not destructed by God, then evil is either similar to God or God lets it to be.
  • If God eliminates all evil then earth will pass into the paradise.
  • If the earth passes into the paradise, then people will become righteous as God.
  • Until evil is present on earth, God can be higher than people.
  • Evil exists for God’s prior position in contrast to people.

Thus, the supposed continuation of the premises is rather appropriate for the complete logically correct evaluation of the seventh point, being a conclusion to syllogism maintained and discussed above. That is why there are all grounds to deny the righteousness of the conclusion, because it contradicts the previous premises on the whole. While discussing the idea with more glimpses at structurally correct composing of syllogism it is vital to point out the features of all elements of this logical entity with an outlook on their gradual character.

The strongest response to the conclusion of the syllogism should state that existence of both evil and God goes without saying due to transparent and transcendental nature of them (Boyd 107). In other words, the existence of evil is seen practically in peoples’ deeds and troubles which appear in the world or countries of it. Goodness is also seen practically in deeds of people and care of nature about people. This superficial explanation of both sides of the discussion constitutes their presence, as a universal fact. In accordance with God and evil, one may presuppose that they exist in the practical implementation by means of the nature and people. Nevertheless, in the graphical description of proposed premises there are too many points as of God and His supposed higher qualities. Evil is less admitted. This is why there is a background for making an assertion that God opposes to evil with more factual base. From the other side, it is not correct to be categorical in thinking that evil is everywhere and that it affects God’s existence in the universe. Such predetermined estimation of the philosophical idea as of the core theme of the discussion leads to rather objective grounding of the God-evil relation.

Finally, according to the points 3 and 4 the assumption which can be made is that they are, first, almost similar in the conceptual constituent of the meaning provided; second, both points are presupposed with possible actions from the side of God. It is vital here to make emphasis on how criticism and defence are contradicted in the premises. Here comes an assumption of just logical evaluation of the relations between two parts in each point. In other words, it is vital to point out whether criticism in step 3 grave or not. On the contrary, the defence in the step 4 also needs argumentation.

Looking at both steps in premises there is no doubt that the step 4 is rather compelling in contrast to the point 3. The defence made in it is rather objective and provides stronger intensive and fair definition of God’s features as of controversies related to evil. To know when and where evil exists is, of course, a prerogative of God. However, the other side of the discussion provides a conviction that just to know is not enough. Everything in this world can be checked throughout the actions. Though, the action of God implemented in elimination of all evil is quite grave. In fact, it admits another supposed opinion being a continuation to the step 4: If God eliminates all evil then earth will pass into the paradise.

Works cited

Boyd, Gregory A. Is God to blame?: moving beyond pat answers to the problem of evil. Westmont, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Find out the price of your paper