1. A philosophicalresponseto evil is to explain it in terms of human freedom: in light
of god’s strong actualization of freedom, how might we describethe character of
god.
The relationship between human freedom and god’s will is one of the most important problems
in philosophy. If god’s grace is necessary for us to choose the good, then it is hard to explain
how our choices can be free on the other hand if we are free to choose and god has nothing to do
with it then how such a god is omniscient or omnipotent. If we aren’t free to choose then why are
we punished or blamed for god’s doing. In this situation god becomes responsible for moral evil,
either by causing it Himself or by punishing us who are not responsible for it. Why an all-
knowing, all-powerful and morally good god allows all these sufferings which humanity and all
other beings are going through from thousands of years.
It will be useful to focus on some particular evil that our world contains in consider- able
abundance. Intense human and animal suffering, for example, occurs daily and in great plenitude
in our world. Such intense suffering is a clear case of evil. Of course, if the intense suffering
leads to some greater good, a good we could not have obtained without undergoing the suffering
in question, we might conclude that the suffering is justified, but it remains an evil nevertheless.
For we must not confuse the intense suffering in and of itself with thc good things to which it
sometimes leads or of which it may be a necessary part. Intense human or animal suffering is in
itself bad, an evil. Even though it may sometimes be justified by virtue of being a part of, or
leading to, some good which is unobtainablc without it? What is evil in itself may sometimes be
good as a means because it leads to something that is good in itself. In such a case, while
remaining an evil in itself, the intense human or animal suffering is, nevertheless, an evil which
someone might be morally justified in permitting.

2. A few theists recommend that maybe God has a justifiable reason explanation behind permitting
the shrewd and enduring that he does. An extraordinary old reason can legitimize God's
permitting the greater part of the malevolent and enduring we see. Mass killers and serial
executioners regularly have explanations behind why they perpetrate appalling violations,
however they don't have great reasons. It's exclusive when individuals have ethically great
reasons that we pardon or overlook their conduct. Logicians of religion have called the sort of
reason that could ethically legitimize God's permitting detestable and enduring an "ethically
adequate reason."
The puzzle of wrongdoing of which Bavinck talks can not be explained by engage man's
shortcoming in light of his material and delicate nature, yet as per the light of Scripture must be
seen as a riddle of man made great who turned out to be awful through his fall, his disobedience,
which estranged him from the eminence and from the fellowship of God. It brought him on a
self-picked method for inward and broad unfreedom, and along these lines turned into the
persisting defiance of his life. Of this move there is no explanation, now or later on, to be given
which would make this progression towards distance mentally or regarding human sciences
justifiable. Each endeavor in this heading — and there have been a few endeavors made — each
endeavor to clarify the likelihood of wrongdoing through man's createdness has dependably
prompted endeavoring to clarify sin itself, to place it inside causal and informative connections,
and in this manner to take away or if nothing else to relativize its character of blame. Presently,
scholars have frequently talked about the possibilitas peccandi and of the conceivably alterable
integrity of made man,49 yet plainly these terms and references regularly mean close to call
attention to, starting with the reality of transgression, that the fall of man was not "unthinkable"
but rather "conceivable." But it is further clear that we then can not discuss this capacity as a

3. standard "probability" like different potential outcomes, which dependably toss some light on
their realization. In the event that we talk in such mold of the likelihood of erring, we toss no
light on the matter — pretty much as it appears to be difficult to comprehend what Bavinck
really implied when he composed that God made the likelihood of wrongdoing.
Now the problem is the existence of evil which is the strongest argument that atheists have
against theists. If evil exists then either there is no god or he is not morally perfect. Augustine
was asked, “Isn’t God the cause of evil”? For if God is not all-good, the question is directly
answered, and if God is not all-powerful, then it is obvious that some other being could be the
cause of evil against God’s will. He explains this on the basis of hierarchy of beings in the world
like plants, animals and human beings. Some things are more perfect than others. However, the
existing human being is not the ultimate key to understanding reality; for when we judge, we
judge by some criterion of truth, goodness, or beauty. Hence a lesser perfect being cannot
understand the most perfect being. In his view God’s providence forces our choices.
Evil and suffering exist in the world to enable imperfect creatures to grow towards a more
perfect state was Irenaean point of view regarding problem of evil. They argued that through the
exercise of free will, people can overcome difficulty and temptation and thus approach God and
perfection.
Saint Thomas Aquinas argued that things are not evil in themselves but in relation to other
things. God is not the source of evil and it is privation or the absence of good. In David Hume’s
view if god is not able to prevent evil he is not potent and he is able but not preventing evil then
he is immoral. Leibniz argued that this is the best of the possible worlds. Leibniz optimistically
considered this world the best balance of good and evil.

4. I feel that Persons have ethically critical choice on the off chance that they can perform activities
that are ethically huge. Envision a conceivable world where God makes animals with an
exceptionally restricted sort of flexibility. Assume that the persons in this world can just pick
great alternatives and are unequipped for picking awful choices. Along these lines, in the event
that one of them were confronted with three conceivable strategies—two of which were ethically
great and one of which was ethically awful—this individual would not be free as for the ethically
awful alternative. That will be, that individual would not have the capacity to pick any awful
choice regardless of the possibility that they needed to. Our theoretical individual does,
notwithstanding, have complete flexibility to choose which of the two great blueprints to take.
Individuals in this world dependably perform ethically great activities, yet they merit no credit
for doing as such. It is incomprehensible for them to do off-base. In this way, when they do
perform right activities, they ought not be applauded. It is strange to give moral applause to a
robot for putting your pop can in the reuse canister as opposed to the waste can, if that is the
thing that it was modified to do. Given the system running inside the robot and its presentation to
a void pop would, it be able to's going to take the can to the reuse container. It must choose
between limited options about the matter. Essentially, the general population in the conceivable
world under thought must choose between limited options about being great. Since they are pre-
modified to be great, they merit no commendation for it.
According to protest theodicy god is not wholly good. As John K Roth puts it in A Theodicy of
Protest:
“Everything hinges on the proposition that God possesses – but fails to use well enough – the
power to intervene decisively at any moment to make history’s course less wasteful. Thus, in
spite and because of his sovereignty, this God is everlastingly guilty and the degrees run from

5. gross negligence to mass murder.In the words of process theodicy god seeks to persuade us to
actualize our potential.”
The theologians like Alvin Plantinga have one solution that if evil exist it is because god wants
to ensure free will. If he intervenes in the earthly matters then it abandons free will. It is from
this free will that evil and good arises. This approach usually involves establishing logical limits
to God’s omnipotence, allowing that he cannot create creatures with free will and determine their
actions. This is called free will defense. Firstly the existence of free beings is an intrinsically
good thing as it allows morally significant choices and the good consequences of these choices
(love, generosity, self-sacrifice, compassion and so on). Secondly, that for this freedom to exist
there must also exist the possibility of evil. To expect God to create free beings and
simultaneously to prevent their making immoral choices is to demand a logical impossibility.
Free will is the only possible explanation that we have and that can be of any benefit to the
humanity. The world can be made better by accepting the responsibility for our actions and
changing what can be changed.

6. References:
1) Plantinga, Alvin. 1977. ”God, Freedom, and Evil.” Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
2) Mackie, J. L. 1982. ”The Miracle of Theism”. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3) WILLIAM L. ROWE.“ ATHEITHE PROBLEM OF EVIL AND SOME VARIETIES OFSM “