The Problem of Evil is a problematic debate amongst skeptics and Christians. This essay will construct my personal views of the inconsistency between the three tenets that intelligent and rational Christians affirm. The focus of this essay is to address the contradiction between the three tenets of the Christian faith and to discuss the consequent remarks in regards to labeling God as all good and all powerful. Based on my personal belief, I find it difficult to accept all three tenets considering that the third tenant challenges the other two tenets of God’s power and love. If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then why does he allow real suffering to exist within the world of humanity?
Based on my personal reflection, I believe that God shouldn’t be categorized as both an all-powerful and an all-loving God, since he allows moral and natural evil to occur within the world. Wouldn’t an all-loving and all-powerful God want to see humans happy and allow empathy in the world? In the book of Genesis, God is considered as the sole creator of everything involved in the universe. Considering that he is the sole creator, we would intent that all things he brought would be based on soulful and good intentions. But considering that there are evil things in the world, then wouldn’t he also be the sole creator to blame for evils existence?
When discussing God’s capability of allowing evil to exists, one must be aware that there are two types of evil; moral evil and natural evil. Since we are discussing evil, we must take into account the several types of evil that exist in our world. Both moral and natural evil exist in the world.
If God is all loving and all powerful, why does he allow moral evils, such as humans committing evil act...
... middle of paper ...
...of evil in which we are and aren’t held accountable for. It is God who is accountable for our actions for he is the one who granted us with the power.
With that being said, I argue that there is an inconsistency between the three tenets that intelligence and rational Christians affirm. Based on my belief, we cannot label God as all-powerful and loving considering that he has allowed the existence of evil not only to be welcomed into society but also to let it continue. The third tenet of suffering contradicts the first two tenets of Gods love and omnipotence. If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then why does he continue to allow suffering to exist within the world of humanity? The best way to answer this question according to Thomas Aquinas would be ““Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God.” (Summa Theologiae, Questions on God)
The pervasive problem of evil in the world has pleagued the Christian faith that proclaim God as a good and perfect God. There has been a need for theist to address this issues as a disclaimer for those that use evil as an reason to disprove that God could be good, perfect or even exist. Therefore, theist theologians and philosophers have turned to theodicies to attempt to explain the problem of evil. Theodicy is an attempt to explain why God permits evil in the world. This essay will show the historical approach to theodicy, the opposition to said theodicies and why theodicies could still play an important role today.
In relation to the replies about the problem of evil it is very implausible that an omnibenevolent god could exist since evil is present. However in terms of the problem of evil, there is not enough information or reasoning to suggest either god’s existence or non-existence. Christians could simply argue that god is not always omnibenevolent and that everything happens for a reason, including evil, perhaps part of a plan that current generations undergo suffering for the greater good of future generations. In contrast, atheistic people could suggest that if that were true then that is unfair and god is not suppose to be unfair.
The problem of evil is inescapable in this fallen world. From worldwide terror like the Holocaust to individual evils like abuse, evil touches every life. However, evil is not a creation of God, nor was it in His perfect will. As Aleksandr
The problem of reconciling an omnipotent, perfectly just, perfectly benevolent god with a world full of evil and suffering has plagued believers since the beginning of religious thought. Atheists often site this paradox in order to demonstrate that such a god cannot exist and, therefore, that theism is an invalid position. Theodicy is a branch of philosophy that seeks to defend religion by reconciling the supposed existence of an omnipotent, perfectly just God with the presence of evil and suffering in the world. In fact, the word “theodicy” consists of the Greek words “theos,” or God, and “dike,” or justice (Knox 1981, 1). Thus, theodicy seeks to find a sense of divine justice in a world filled with suffering.
There is evil. 3. So, God does not exist”. Since there is evil, then that means God does not exist. So there is no loving and powerful God. However, if there is a God then he is not all loving and powerful. Daniel Howard-Snyder states in his article “God, Evil, And Suffering,”: “We would have to say God lacks power and knowledge to such an extent that He can 't prevent evil. And there lies the trouble. For how could God have enough power and knowledge to create and sustain the physical universe if He can 't even prevent evil? How could He be the providential governor of the world if He is unable to do what even we frequently do, namely prevent evil?” (5). This statement argues that God is not all powerful because he is unable to prevent evil in the world. Daniel Howard-Snyder then argues that: “Would a perfectly good being always prevent evil as far as he can? Suppose he had a reason to permit evil, a reason that was compatible with his never doing wrong and his being perfect in love, what I 'll call a justifying reason. For example, suppose that if he prevented evil completely, then we would miss out on a greater good, a good whose goodness was so great that it far surpassed the badness of evil. In that case, he might not prevent evil as far as he can, for he would have a justifying reason to permit it” (5). Even if God had a reason to allow evil, he who is all loving and powerful would want the least amount of people to suffer and feel pain. Since God knows
This is an important point, because if our understanding of God is that He is purely good, then why would so many of this heinous events occur. “Theist reply that because God is necessarily good, He would never do anything morally reprehensible Himself nor command us to preform heinous acts.” (Anderson, 2007). However, God is seen punishing not only those who are considered to be evil, but also those who are innocent, He causes floods, plagues and death to many people because of one person’s act, or if He was angry. This is completely opposite to our understanding of God loving us all and to our most important idea that God is perfectly good. Even if these acts were seen as punishing those who are considered evil, then God would have not done any act that would harm someone, nor would He permit us to do so. The bible is filled with these inaccuracies, is God loving of all, or just the few that follow Him, it states different allowances in stories (Infidels.org, 2016). It is my understanding that these stories are proof that God is not purely good, which itself is an argument for Him not to exist or that the stories themselves or false. Murder was perfectly fine for the soldiers of the First Crusade, who slaughtered every man, woman, and child, however it is written in the bible that murder is prohibited, it is a sin. Many other events like this occurred. When we look
While traditional theology has characterized God as being omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, we all have seen instances of evil in the world, from the genocide currently occurring in Darfur to the mass torture seen in the Spanish Inquisition, where people have been forced to suffer at the hands of others for millennia. Mackie’s argument is that an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God has the means, knowledge and desire to prevent such instances of evil from occurring, and yet evil clearly exists. Mackie argues that the removal of any one of the ascribed characteristics would solve the problem of evil; however few theologians have been prepared to accept this as the only solution. (Mackie, 1955)
The problem of evil in the world has to do with more than an unjust God or God not being in
It is perhaps the most difficult intellectual challenge to a Christian how God and evil can both exist. Many of the greatest minds of the Christian church and intellects such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas spent their entire lives trying to solve this problem, and were unsuccessful (Erickson, 2009, p.439). However, this dilemma is not only an intellectual challenge, but it is emotional. Man feels it, lives it. Failing to identify the religious form of the problem of evil will appear insensitive; failure to address the theological form will seem intellectually insulting. This conundrum will never be completely met during our earthly life, but there are many biblical and philosophical resources that help mitigate it.
For the author the goodness of God remains despite the reality and face of evil in the world because evil is the result of man’s weakness, of man using his free will to veer away from the laws and opt to live in sin. God in all his power shows the utmost respect on man’s freedom by not imposing his will on men but by respecting his choice – to be good or to be evil.
In, “The Problem of Evil,” Eleonore Stump holds the belief that the existence of evil in our world does not automatically disprove God’s existence. The belief that God cannot live alongside evil is considered to be the Evidential Problem of evil and this is what Stump is arguing against in her paper. Stump argues, the ability to fix our defective free will makes Union with God possible, which overwrites all the un-absorbable evils in the world, showing both God and un-absorbable evils can coexist. In this paper I hope to show that God can exist, but also show that human free will is limited.
God is the source of evil. He created natural evil, and gave humans the ability to do moral evil by giving them a free will. However, had he not given people free will, then their actions would not be good or evil; nor could God reward or punish man for his actions since they had no choice in what to do. Therefore, by giving humans choice and free will, God allowed humanity to decide whether to reward themselves with temporary physical goods, and suffer in the long run from unhappiness, or forsake bodily pleasures for eternal happiness.
In a world of chaos, he who lives, lives by his own laws and values. Who is to say that the death of millions is any worse or better, for that matter, than injuring a cockroach. And in the case of an existing power in the form of God, who is presumed to be all which is good, presiding and ruling an organized universe, why then does evil exist? The prosaic response of “without evil, there is no good” no longer holds any validity in this argument as the admitted goal of good is to reach an existence without evil. So even if a God does exist, I think it is fair, at this point, to say that he is the embodiment of both good and evil. And if humoring those who would answer the previous question with the response that there can be no good without evil, then can we assume that evil is simply a subsection of a defined good? Or perhaps even a good thing? If it is essential, those who chose the side of evil are simply abiding by good values. In the case of a world ruled by Chaos, evil is a non-existent word or value, rather. The system upon which a person’s actions are judged also disappears leaving nothing but an instinct for natural survival as basic and primary as the life within the forests which we tear down to build our houses.
To answer that question we must further examine the original premises that we based the first conclusion upon: God is all-powerful and God is all-loving. To say that either one of these postulates are true would disrupt the foundation of the Christian beliefs. So we must dig deeper and look at the thought that "God does not want suffering". Since suffering indeed happens, and God being the all-powerful individual and could stop suffering from happening if He wanted, then God must want suffering to happen for a reason. That's strange, since we are saying God is also all-loving. God must need suffering to happen for a reason, but ...
Our free will that God gave us leads to sin since humans are not fully pure. Sin then leads to evil. I believe that God allows evil to exist. He can handle evil, it’s below him. If God is capable of mediating as I trust, then He must not for reasons. First, it would curtail our free will if He intervened. If he destroyed evil now, then there would be no more goodness since one can’t exist without the other. Second, we wouldn’t learn from our mistakes; we learn from suffering and hardships. Perseverance makes us stronger, not