One of the recurring themes of Shusaku's Silence is the philosophical problem of the existence of an all-good, omniscient and all-powerful God and the existence of wrong. The problem of the novel can be formulated as follows: if there is a good God, how is it that he allows his innocent and devoted people to suffer? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get an original essayA usual analysis of this problem is that an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God is not compatible with existence bad. For assuming that such a God exists and created everything, there must be no evil in the first place, as this is in direct contradiction to his goodness. But assuming that God and evil exist, then either of the following is true, each in response to its attributes, that is: God is not omniscient enough to foresee evil which falls on his creature. For if He knows their suffering, He will be affected by it and will alleviate their suffering. God is not omnipotent enough to save His creation from evil, despite His goodness and knowledge of the matter. God is not good after all. . He already knew that something bad was happening to his creature but was not affected by it and acted immediately despite having the power to do so. From the preceding implications, one cannot hold both the existence of God and evil without affront to the attributes of God. And if one persists in maintaining the existence of both God and evil, then either it is logically inconsistent in its assertion, or simply that such a God, given the reality of evil, simply does not exist not. The Silence of Shusaku, through its Japanese Christian martyrs, has an answer to all these affronts about the attributes of God, and that answer is based on their claim to life after death or as they call it: Heaven. Heaven, as these characters believe, is a place where their souls can go after death. In Heaven, there is neither evil nor suffering, everything is happiness. With this claim of Heaven, the three essential attributes of God: omniscient, all good and all powerful, can be preserved despite the existence of evil, that is to say: God is omniscient because he created heaven to from his awareness that evil can happen to His creatures, and there, in Heaven, the souls of these creatures will take refuge in eternal happiness without evil. God is not powerless in the face of the evil that happens to His creatures because He created Heaven where these creatures can take refuge after their death. God is good because he created the sky, which he will not do if he is purely evil. Having heaven as the answer, it seems that God's response to the evil that befalls his creature is rather delayed. Why did God wait or remain “silent” until the last moment of his suffering creature? Assuming that all goodness involves the capacity to be merciful, why should not God's mercy respond as quickly, like that of the merciful among men, to assist and alleviate the suffering of his creatures? Although Heaven's reward is rather delayed, Christianity can balance this with its claim to the existence of Hell, which is a place entirely contrary to Heaven in that the wicked are condemned there to eternal torment and suffering. . But this still leads us to wonder why doesn't God immediately throw the wicked into hell? Why still wait for these evil people to die and remain silent while these evil people commit evil deeds? If the human justice system is supposed to be quick in principle, why does God's justice not seem to be slow, or even imperceptible, given that He has all the power to operate quickly,unlike the human justice system which is mired in inefficiency or corruption along the way? To address the foregoing difficulties, John Hick's appeal to Iranian theodicy may be helpful. Hick's Irenean solution to the problem of God and evil can be demonstrated thus: Man is born into the imperfect world. God gives man the chance to participate in his perfection only if he chooses. Man possesses rationality, moral judgment and moral choice; and both are necessary if he chooses to participate in God's perfection. There is evil in the world caused either by man (moral evil) or by nature (natural evil). The world, with the evil caused by nature or man, is a place where man can cultivate himself to participate in the perfection of God. God cannot intervene in the world, even if it is in response to alleviate the evil that befalls man, because otherwise He has defeated the world's crucial purpose of being a land of cultivation. for man. Therefore, God and evil can coexist, with evil (moral or natural) serving as an eventual condition in the world as man cultivates himself to participate in God's perfection. With Hick's Irenaean argument, the earlier difficulties can be resolved. saying that although God seems to be silent both in the face of his suffering creatures and their evildoers, it is out of respect for the important function of the world which is a cultivated ground for men working towards their perfection. And it would be absurd for God to constantly intervene every time a slight feeling of evil falls on his creature, say man; Since God has provided man with the essential attributes necessary to achieve perfection and God knows everything, he is unsure of his creation. As for the accusation of mercy not leading to immediate action: given the goal of perfection that God has entrusted to man and the essential function of the world to achieve it; God's mercy and corresponding action, in giving man the chance to recover from imperfection, is not frenzied but rather deliberate, which then suits his omniscient nature. And finally, to the accusation of slow, even imperceptible justice, we can respond that God wants us all to participate in his perfection. In this situation, it seems that God is offering men a win-win situation and it all depends on man's choice to join God with his perfection or not. Hick's Irenaean argument seems to be a plausible solution to make the existence of God and that of evil compatible; and in this understanding, the suffering of the Christian martyrs in Shusaku's Silence is not without meaning. However, the argument rests on some key premises which I would examine and comment on. These key premises are the existence of God, the destiny of man towards perfection, the function of the world to achieve this and his condition. The existence of God. We can still wonder whether God existed or not. Although some arguments claim to prove the existence of God, among the most popular are Aquinas's cosmological argument, Anselm's ontological argument, or Paley's design argument; but all, as Kant pointed out, rest on the assumption that the mind of man can understand and reason reliably about transcendental things such as God. But as Kant will later show, the mind of man can only reliably understand and reason about things in experience, and beyond that, the mind of man is only more capable of judging and reasoning; therefore, according to Kant, it is beyond man to know with certainty the existence of God. Compared to popular arguments about the existence of God, I found Kant's critical argument more attractive, because unlike the popular argument about.