2
RUNNING HEAD: Response Essay
Introduction
The first problem of evil would be a logical problem. The existence of God is incompatible with
the reality of evil, as demonstrated by the logical problem of evil. It is impossible for God and
evil to cohabit, just as it is impossible for married bachelors or round squares to exist. As stated,
the argument is formally sound. The conclusion is inevitable if the premises are correct. The
second problem would be an evidential problem. God and evil are logically compatible,
according to the evidentiary issue of evil. Nevertheless, it is maintained that God most likely
does not exist given the magnitude, distribution, and quantity of evil in the world. The majority
of theists focus on the premise, arguing that there is no meaningless evil, while some reject it as
false. God has a morally sound justification for permitting evil in every situation. The argument
that many believes solves the logical problem is called the Free Will Defense. Which stands on
the premise that God cannot do the logically impossible. Creatures have the right to make their
own decisions and with that right comes evil. The argument against the evidential problem
would be Free Will theodicy which is a God-justifying reason for evil. Where the authors try and
justify why evil exists.
Both answers mentioned above could be supported by Pruitt’s arguments. A variant of
the evidential problem of evil is presented by Dew and Gould. According to this argument, the
existence of serious evil in the universe cannot coexist with the existence of a completely good,
all-knowing, and all-powerful God. God could stop any evil from occurring if he is indeed all-
powerful. He would be aware of every incidence of evil before it happened if he were all-
knowing. And he would undoubtedly wish to stop such suffering if he were entirely good. Dew
and Gould contend that the existence of such a God is called into question by the existence of
evil. Conversely, Pruitt makes an effort to make sense of the coexistence of a good God and evil.
3
RUNNING HEAD: Response Essay
He frequently emphasizes the concept of free choice and the potential for greater good to result
from the existence of evil in his theodicy, which explains why evil exists despite the existence of
a good God. He would contend that when given the option between good and evil, people
occasionally select evil, and that even while this decision causes suffering, it also fosters moral
growth and a stronger bond with God. Even though they came to different results, there may be
certain points where Pruitt's theodicy could be supported by Dew & Gould's arguments. These
domains might consist of: The significance of free will Dew and Gould may agree that if God
really gives individuals free will, then their decisions will unavoidably lead to some evil. This
supports Pruitt's contention that evil exists because of free choice. The Greater Good from Evil
Dew and Gould might agree that some benefit can result from pain, even though they might not
entirely agree with Pruitt's exact assertions on larger good. Even those who dismiss the empirical
problem of evil frequently acknowledge this possibility, and theodicy frequently examines this
theme. According to Pruitt's definition in The Nature of Evil as a Privation of Good, evil is the
loss of good. According to Pruitt, evil is defined as the loss of good.
According to Travis Dumsday's discussion in The Problem of Divine Hiddenness, his
argument regarding the possible requirement of God's hiddenness in connection to religious
experience is the most compelling. According to his reasoning, a fully revealed God might even
be harmful, threatening to undermine the sincere and significant character of worship and faith.
This is fascinating because it offers an alternative viewpoint that stresses the significance of
mystery and the pursuit of meaning in religious life, challenging the conventional understanding
of God as an easily accessible and manifest reality. The idea that religious experience should
entail instantaneous, undeniable knowledge of God is directly challenged by Dumsday's
argument. He makes the argument that this type of "instantaneous" understanding can be
4
RUNNING HEAD: Response Essay
harmful, possibly even leading to a kind of spiritual complacency or undervaluing the continuous
pursuit of meaning. The argument emphasizes how being concealed can inspire awe and
amazement and motivate people to learn more about the secrets of faith and the supernatural.
This viewpoint places more emphasis on the importance of the spiritual journey than on
achieving complete clarity right now. According to Dumsday, the fact that God is concealed may
really be a prerequisite for having a genuine religious experience. Because God's hiddenness
necessitates an intentional process of seeking and understanding, it may foster a more profound
and significant relationship with the supernatural.
By arguing that God's existence cannot be logically proven, Dumsday's contribution to
the issue of divine hiddenness supports Dew & Gould's overall strategy and explains why God is
hidden. The premise that God's absence of conclusive evidence does not necessarily disprove His
existence but rather suggests that He is not a subject of verifiable proof is supported by
Dumsday's argument, which is essentially a critique of theism. According to Dumsday, the
absence of unmistakable, indisputable proof of God's existence is a quality of a non-obvious God
who is subject to reasonable skepticism rather than a contradiction of His divine nature. This is
consistent with the view held by Dew & Gould that the existence of evil and the challenge of
proving God's existence do not rule out the possibility of a higher force. One interpretation of
Dumsday's arguments is that God's concealment has a purpose, such as encouraging free will and
enabling a more profound comprehension of the supernatural through trust rather than proof
alone. This supports the idea put forth by Dew & Gould that a deeper understanding of God's
character can eventually result from the existence of evil and hiddenness. Dumsday challenges
the conventional view of God as a being who is readily verifiable by raising doubts about the
possibility of a non-obvious God. In line with Dew & Gould's contention that the absence of
5
RUNNING HEAD: Response Essay
observable evidence does not always rule out the existence of a higher power, this calls into
question the idea that God is an object of empirical evidence. Essentially, Dumsday's arguments
supplement Dew & Gould's overall approach to the issue by offering a framework for viewing
the issue of divine hiddenness as a characteristic of the divine design rather than a defect in the
divine nature.
After all things are considered, my conclusions on the problem of evil effects my view on the
case for God’s existence. I wish I could say I have always been a firm believer that God is real,
and I have never questioned my faith, but unfortunately that is not the case. The more I look
back on the times I questioned my faith, the more I realized I had some of the same arguments
that were discussed in the readings. God is supposed to be all powerful and HE can perform
miracles, so why does he let bad things happen in the world? Why are children being beaten and
starved and placed in homes that aren’t good for them. Why are children suffering from things
like cancer? On my bad days, when my faith is really low, this is where my thoughts would go.
I have to believe though what was stated previously is the case, because of free will evil exist. I
know it isn’t as simple as that, but sometimes maybe we aren’t meant to have the answers to
everything.
6
RUNNING HEAD: Response Essay
References
Dumsday, T. (n.d.). C. S. Lewis on the problem of divine hiddenness. anglicantheologicalreview.
http://www.anglicantheologicalreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/
dumsday_97.1.pdf
James K. Dew Jr. and Paul M. Gould, Philosophy: A Christian Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2019), 179.
James K. Dew Jr. and Paul M. Gould, Philosophy: A Christian Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2019), 182.
Pruitt, J. (2023, March 29). God, evil, and the human good. Moral Apologetics.
https://www.moralapologetics.com/wordpress/god-evil-and-the-human-good-part-1-of-2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
