Encountering evil critical thinking examples

1. Davis claims that: evil is existent, God is omnipotent and that God is perfectly acceptable. He refuses to consider any other claims that suggest otherwise (Page 69).
2. Davis argues that God’s two main aims in creating the universe are that He first of all wanted to create the best universe he could. This was aimed at bringing a balance of morality and natural goodness over the moral and natural evil. Secondly, He wanted to create a world dominated by human beings who are rational agents that would love and obey Him. (Page 70).
3. In his argument, Davis suggests that the free will defense ought to insist on the fact that the amount of evil that will exist in the end will be outweighed by the finest in existent at that time. To some it all it must also focus on actuality that the favorable balance of beneficial over evil was obtained from God and not incidental or influenced by any factors (Page 71)
4. The three serious objections addressed by Davis in an effort to solve the problem of evil include:
i. That humans were not created as perfectly morally upright beings since they sin and that God and not human beings is responsible for the moral evil.
ii. The second objection is on the omnipotence of God and on His being wholly true since if that is the case, He would have created a flawless human being that chose only righteous from evil.
iii. The third objection is on the premise that evil is attributed to the agents of free will created by God. This is contradictory especially due to the fact that some natural evils like earthquakes cannot be attributed to any agent. (Pages 72-74).
5.
Davis finds it hard to solve the evangelistic aspect of the emotive problem of evil because it requires convincing arguments. These are that natural evil is caused by the choices of moral agents such as Satan and that God’s decision to create free, moral agents is wise due to the fact that the freedom turns out to be lucrative. However, these propositions are just objects of faith and not knowledge. They cannot be substantiated from a common point of view (Pages 79-80).

Stephen T. Davis (2001). Free Will and Evil, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press

Stephen T. Davis (1972). Religious Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press