mill vs mackie:
Mill argues from a utilitarian standpoint.
Believes in the benevolence of God but questions the evidence in nature.
Mill observes brutality and suffering in nature, arguing against the existence of a benevolent creator.
Nature's cruelty, in his view, contradicts the concept of a loving and caring God.
He relies on empirical evidence, highlighting the apparent indifference and harshness in the natural world.
Belief in a caring God, according to Mill, lacks support from observed realities.
Mackie argues from a logical and evidential problem of evil.
Proposes the inconsistency of the coexistence of evil with an all-powerful and benevolent God.
Mackie contends that the traditional attributes of God—omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence—are logically incompatible with the existence of evil.
The existence of gratuitous evil (pointless suffering) challenges the traditional concept of God.
Focuses on the logical problem of evil, questioning the coherence of holding certain divine attributes alongside the presence of evil.
Challenges theists to reconcile these attributes without logical contradictions.
irenaeus vs augustine:
irenaeus
humans made in God's image and likeness.
distinction between image and likeness.
free will is essential for humans to be in God's image.
evil has a purpose, helps create the soul.
positive response to evil strengthens the relationship with God.
augustine
evil is the absence of good (privatio boni).
evil originated from the fall of angels misusing free will.
the angelic fall repeated in the garden of Eden.
disruption caused by the fall impacted the created order.
variation in the created world is part of its goodness and perfection.
humans fell catastrophically due to Adam and Eve's disobedience.
variety in creation is not evil; differences mean some creatures are more limited.
the first evil entered the world through the fall of angels.
human experience of evil results from the misuse of free will.
evil is not a separate force but a falling away from goodness.