Show Less
Restricted access

Theodicy - From a Logical Point of View


Paul Weingartner

The aim of the book is to refute the claim that God’s omniscience, omnipotence and benevolence on the one hand and the existence of evil on the other are together inconsistent. This is shown first by unmasking many types of such claims as either logical fallacies or as presupposing false assumptions. Secondly the author formulates God’s attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and benevolence  and the existence of 10 types of evil in an axiomatic system. This contains the theorems about God’s knowledge, will, causation and benevolence without leading to any inconsistency. It proves the compatibility between God’s attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and benevolence with the fact of existence of evil. The author offers a consistency proof for the whole axiomatic system with the help of a model in which all axioms and theorems are satisfied.
Show Summary Details
Restricted access

5. An Axiomatic System of Theodicy: Evil


Observe that propositions using the copula e have no existential import. From p e E or p e G it does not follow that such states of affairs that are evil or good exist as facts. In order to state the evil or the good as a fact, we have to add that the respective state of affairs is the case. This is done by adding p in conjunction with p e E in theorem T75.

The general claim of theorem T75 needs differentiation. To do that we shall distinguish different kinds of evil by describing them roughly and then by providing definitions for them.

MetE consists in different degrees of imperfection and finitude. There are two kinds of imperfection, one bound to nature and therefore necessary of a thing or organism, the other contingent.

(a) Degrees of Imperfection

Organisms which—by their nature—cannot move themselves from one place to another are less perfect than those who can. Or species of organisms that have a much simpler DNA are less perfect than those which have a more complex one. However, this imperfection is not a deficit or privation of some particular good which ought to be present; therefore we cannot speak of an evil of mode E1. Moreover, it is bound to nature and in this sense necessary since it characterizes different species. Therefore, to exclude that kind of imperfectness would be to exclude multitude and differentiation of the...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.