God Is Omnipotent And Can Not Make Evil Good

Before we can dive into the problem of evil, we must define a term. Whenever the word “God” is used in this paper, it is referring to the classical theistic conception of God. In this view of God, God is that, “than which nothing greater can be conceived” in your mind. Any attributes or qualities that make a being great, God has to the maximum. This means that, among many other qualities, God is benevolent(all good), omnipotent(all powerful), and omniscient(all knowing). Furthermore, God is the creator of the universe and is personally connected to the human race.

In the course of this essay I will argue that evil is not compatible with the existence of god. This means that evil and God cannot coexist because if god were present, the existence of evil would contradict all that god is believed to be. Abrahamic religions insist that God both created the world and that he preserves and maintains it. Christianity claims that God is all knowing and is boundless in his abilities. Religions claim that God is benevolent, and only wants the best for humanity and the universe, as his creations. If all of the above statements be true, then it is hard to understand why god would allow evil to thrive right from the beginning of time.

One of the oldest dilemmas in philosophy is also one of the greatest threats to Christian theology. The problem of evil simultaneously perplexes the world’s greatest minds and yet remains palpably close to the hearts of the most common people. If God is good, then why is there evil? The following essay describes the problem of evil in relation to God, examines Christian responses to the problem, and concludes the existence of God and the existence of evil are fully compatible.

This essay features the discussion of the problem of evil in relation to the existence of god. Specifically outlining two sections where the problem of evil is discussed from atheist and theistic viewpoint.

“Either we must say that God is not wholly good, and that he permits or is even the author of evil. Or we must say that God is not omnipotent, and although he is wholly good and would prevent evil if he could, he is powerless to stop it.” (Fitzgerald 340).

If that premise is true, and we recall that God being omnipotent can do anything that is possible, it must follow that God could have and would have made humans without the ability to cause evil if he

The second portion asks if he is able but not willing. This would make him malevolent. God is supposed to be omnimalevolent, all loving and all good. A God who is able to stop all evil but doesn’t is clearly not loving then, correct? Christians would respond that this apparent ignorance from God is actually human sin and not God turning his back on us.

Most major arguments of God are rooted in the existence, or lack thereof. However there has been a continuous debate regarding the specific characteristics of God. In this debate, Charles Hartshorne, Alfred North Whitehead, and other the processed theologians oppose Anselm, Augustine, and other classic theologians. Although there are many points of disagreement, there are some characteristics for which both sides can agree upon. I will show one strong point of agreement and one strong point of opposition, and allow you the opportunity to decide for yourself how different, or similar, these two camps are.

Many would read that statement and cry heresy, and maybe it is. I believe in a God that created everything. As the creator of all God is not bound by the same concepts and laws that people are. He exists outside of time and possesses omniscience to know everything that has or will happen. God is completely good.

Stephen Law conducted a thought experiment with a purpose of establishing the existence of an evil God, whereby he challenged those who believed in the presence of a kind and good God, doing nothing evil, and argued that the existent God is wicked indeed. The hypothesis developed into the challenge based on the argument that, if an omnibenevolent God is said to exist, yet there is so much evil in the world, then there is as well a possibility that an evil God exists, yet there is so much good. Law aimed to doubt not the fact of the existence of God, but the generally accepted assumption that the existing God is benevolent. Another researcher, Rowe, refutes this approach, arguing that the existence of a Supreme Being, who created people and hence cares for them, cannot be associated with evil. In fact, the presence of evil is a clear sign of the absence of a God. This paper seeks to take a position opposing to Law’s theory and prove that, despite the presence of evil, an omnibenevolent God still exists.

The problem of evil questions the nature of God and threatens his status as a figure worthy of worship. Surely human beings would not wish to worship a God that is neither all good nor all-powerful? The figure we call God is seen to be entirely perfect and flawless in every way. The problem of evil also questions God’s omniscience, in respects that he is all knowing. If God is omniscient then he must know the harm that evil does and the suffering it will cause. The attributes in question are the essence of the nature of God and without them he becomes more like a human than a God. If any of God’s characteristics are omitted, he

In “The Traditional Doctrine of Divine Simplicity,” Kate Rogers argues that omnipotence means something more along the lines of “having the ability to do what is good” (Rogers 175). She argues that this is the correct definition of omnipotence because the word really means “possessing all strengths” (Rogers 175) This is important because there are many things that God cannot do. Some examples of this are that God cannot sin or make a mistake. However, these are not limitations or inadequacies because being able to make a mistake, for example, is an intrinsic flaw, which God does not have (Rogers 175). Therefore, if we define omnipotence as “having the ability to do what is good,” then we are not in any way limiting God’s power, but rather highlighting His perfection. In other words, it is precisely the fact that God cannot do certain things which makes Him omnipotent. This is because God’s not being able to make a mistake is a strength, rather than a weakness or inadequacy. This relates to our issue because, if omnipotence is defined in this way, then God’s power and goodness become linked in such a way that one does not limit the other. As a result, God is good because He is omnipotent, as under this definition of omnipotence, God could not be omnipotent without being good. Since being omnipotent is part of God’s nature, when it becomes linked with goodness in this way, goodness becomes part of God’s nature as well. Therefore, we capture God’s sovereignty and omnipotence while still maintaining that God can only do and command what is good by making the external standard of goodness become internal to God. In other words, moral goodness is built into God’s nature, and therefore internal to God. As a result, when we say that God is good, we mean that God’s nature is good and that He acts according to this nature. It is important to be clear

In “Creation and the Persistence of Evil”, Levenson asserts that God’s divine omnipotence originates from his battle with rather than banishment of evil. There are a few textual facts to consider in analysis of this statement. In an initial class discussion, we examined the fact that God did not create evil. He created what was and what had the potential to be good (e.g. light, man), separating it from what is deemed as evil (e.g. darkness). For instance, he did not create the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but instead drew boundaries.

God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, which makes us wonder what kind of morally sufficient reason justifies God to allow evil. We know that evil exists in our world, but so does God, so would God be the source of evil as well as good? We have established that God is the omnipotent and benevolent free creator of the world, but suffering and evil exist. Is God unable to prevent evil? If so, he would not be omnipotent. Is He able to prevent the evil in our world but unwilling? If this were then case then he wouldn’t be benevolent. A Persian thinker, Mani, suggested that the answer to this question was a kind of duality between the good and evil. This pluralistic view of the good and evil in our world would suggest that God is

(P3) A perfectly good God will always make the world better than it otherwise would