Mi teoría de porque existe sufrimiento en el mundo

Bueno, para los que no sabían esto de mí soy una traumada de la filosofía desde los 15 maso. Me gusta mucho. Lo cual explicaría como puedo pensar en tantas cosas "random." Una de ella el siguiente ensayo. Ya había escrito yo en alguna entrada anterior que mucha gente dice que la prueba más lógica de que Dios no existe es que existe sufrimiento en el mundo. Pero, yo pienso que es una prueba de que Dios existe. Tuve que escribir un ensayo para mi clase de filosofía, y lo hice sobre eso. Tratándo de comprobar que Dios existe a través del sufrimiento que existe en el mundo. Lo traduciría pero está bien largo... Pero pues casi todos entienden inglés no? A ver que piensan.

-Ignoren los parentésis con pies de nota
-Mackie era o es? un filosofo ateo que dice que Dios no existe o está lilitado debido al sufrimiento existente en el mundo.

The Problem of Evil as a Proof for the Existence of God

The definition of evil according to an online dictionary is “that which causes harm, destruction of misfortune.”(Die, screen 1) Evil is unjustified suffering; something that is constant in our reality, and we, humans, are witnesses on a daily basis of this continuous iniquity. There are some degrees of evil, and they are classified into the moral and natural kinds. Moral evil is that created by immoral actions of a human being, natural is a consequence of the destructive forces of nature. (Leaderu, screen 1) Moral suffering and pain are thought by some to be somewhat justifiable since it is created by men, and it may exist so that we can learn to be stronger and virtuosi . However, a question that often remains lingering is why does unjustified natural wickedness exist in the world? What could we possibly learn from misfortunate consequences of hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. ? How and why would God permit such things to occur? While some philosophers explain that evil in the world exists so that virtues and free will are possible, others question if God truly is all-powerful and all-loving for if such was the case, he would not permit extra evil to exist. In this essay I will discuss the problem of evil and how it may potentially be a proof, and not disproof of God’s existence basing my rationalization on physics’ theory M .

Some philosophers respond to the problem of evil with the virtue defense or the free will defense. Ontological philosophers explain the existence of God by its own definition: “God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” (Keenan, class notes) Therefore, the definition of God assumes divine existence: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Ontological philosophers also agree that God is the creator of the universe. The problem of evil explains that “it is logically impossible to believe that both evil, and a good and powerful God exist in the same reality, for such a God certainly could and would destroy evil.” (Leaderu, screen 1) This is an arsenal often used to suggest God is limited or does not exist used by atheists such as J.L. Mackie. Mackie believes that if God was to be all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing he could have created a world in which there was a smaller range of suffering. Consequently, he believes “it is more logical to assume that God is limited,” (Keenan, class notes) for is he was all-loving, he would not permit a world with such suffering, and if he was all-powerful he would destroy all evil. Theists then often answer with the free will defense, explaining that good and evil are logical opposites and evil is necessary to recognize good, as free will is an essential component of the best possible world, it requires negative outcomes and evil is needed. (Keenan, class notes) Mackie affirms that “just because the world is the way it is does not mean that’s the only possibility,” and that an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God would create, and could create a world in which humans would always pick freely good, he affirms such a God would not allow freedom to do evil.

A Roman philosopher once said “life is neither a good nor an evil: it is a field for good and evil,” I believe planet Earth is that field for life, and the existence of both good and evil in this world proof not only the existence of God, but also his omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence . The first reason to prove such a manner is correct relies a physics theory, the M-theory or mother-theory. This conjecture explains that there is a potential possibility for parallel worlds to exist. In these alternate universes anything may be possible, even different laws of physics, (Wikipedia, screen 1) this means that for every possibility in our universe to happen there is a parallel world where that actually happened. It also signifies that if anything is possible, then there is a world in which suffering does not exist, and furthermore a world in which people always freely pick good, as Mackie suggests. However, we live in this world, the world in which there is moral and natural suffering on a daily basis. Supposing M-theory is accurate, that would mean there is an infinite number or worlds, and an infinite number of possibilities. Then, there is a world in which there is more suffering, both moral and natural, and another with none at all, but being born in this specific world, with this specific laws and specific amount of evil proofs God is in control. Furthermore, it means that he is capable of creating the world Mackie describes, and thus disprove that he is limited, for he has created such a world already, we are just not experiencing it.

An additional point to consider to prove the existence of God via evil is that evil has been defined in two kinds: moral and natural. As some evil is somewhat accepted or understood to be necessary in order for virtue and free will to exist, the extra suffering is considered unnecessary. I believe that it is preposterous to attempt to outline God’s logic in such a matter. If we can understand that some evil is indeed necessary for virtue and free will, then we should assume that the remaining evil must have a logical consequence that is also all-loving as a result; we are just incapable of understanding it with our limited capacity, for we do not think like God, and we do not understand God in such a manner. This could be illustrated with the following metaphor: What if you were babysitting your two-years-old child and he were playing with a knife? You would take away the knife from his hands knowing that it is the best option for his safety. However, the child will not understand it and he would likely sit in a corner crying over the knife, suffering. You would understand this suffering is necessary and preferable, but the child would not. No matter how much you loved the child you would not give that knife back to him. This is often what happens between God and humans. We sit in a corner crying over the knife, the unexplainable suffering and assume God is limited or not all-loving when what is true is that he is being completely unlimited. Taking the knife away form the child is a caring act of God, to name it like this, and suffering is the consequence of not understanding God’s reason.

Adding to this manner, I believe that the third point to consider is that at least in our world good and evil are logical opposites as much as black and white and night and day are too. Mackie proposes that good could exist without evil, and they might not be logical antonyms. (Keenan, class notes) To my understanding in this world, and according to the virtue defense, virtues are displayed in the times of suffering, therefore suffering is necessary. Suffering and happiness are logical opposites. If we are living in a world with virtues, in which we also have free will, then it is logical to assume evil as a necessary path for the best possible world. If we are then living in the best possible world, out of all worlds and we are gifted with these qualities, then I would assume the end justifies the means. Evil is that by which we not only learn, but also have freedom of choice and any mean could be acceptable in order to have those gifts.

God is not limited, he is all powerful but the paradox of understanding God is to understand he is limitless, all-powerful and all-loving without understanding him. If we can comprehend he just is, and not why he is then things might seem more logical. He is that which nothing greater can be conceived, so if he built this world it means it has a degree of perfection, for he is perfect. Going back to the problem of evil, yes, “it is logically impossible to believe that both evil, and a good and powerful God exist in the same reality, for such a God certainly could and would destroy evil.” I believe he could indeed destroy evil, and he might have done so already in another world. But why would he do it in this one? Let us God mind his own business and focus in ours: enjoying the gifts he has provided us.