God Is Omniscient

Thomas Aquinas was an Italian philosopher who lived during the time of 1225-1274 AD. Aquinas was most known for his studies in faith and reason. Aquinas’ ethics relies on the idea that there is a God and that God is a perfect and loving being who is cares for his creation. But, Aquinas does not believe that God has a set of commands that distinguishes right from wrong for each individual to follow. A way to explain these rules is by the Divine Command Theory. To further explain, these rules are better defined as the moral status of an action determined by the will or commands of God. It seems that God created the distinction of right from wrong in order to aid human beings to act in a way that is morally correct according to his commands so that they could achieve perfect happiness. Aquinas’ tells us that perfect happiness is a perfect relationship with God. The Divine Command Theory is completely independent of whether or not anyone believes it and is applicable to anyone at any time. God has also wired all human beings in a certain way in which we have the ability to perform virtues in order to fulfill functions and acting in ways that are against virtues and functions would not be beneficial to the human as that is not how God has created us and commanded us to act. By understanding Thomas Aquinas’ ethical views, we are able to better understand the idea of the Divine Command Theory and why these two ideas go well together in discussing ethical decisions.

After reading Article 1, Aquinas for Armchair Theologians by Timothy M. Renick most can automatically acquire that Thomas Aquinas was a very influential thinker amongst others when explaining his theological views. His religious views may have differed from others during his time, however, it did influence and encourage others on the different topics of God vs. Satan, and why God has not all the answers, and powers when making sure every human being should not face evil. Aquinas believed that Christians needed to view their basic beliefs in another way to make sense of their own faith when questioning all that God did for each individual. The real question to all this, which a lot of people even question today is “Why is their evil in the World?”

For atheists, apologetics, and non-believers, a big topic of contention is the existence of evil in a world with God. This is known as the problem with evil. How does a God that is all knowing, all powerful, and perfectly good allow such atrocities to occur under his watch? It is this question that so many people have discussed. The argument centers on God being omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good (Mackie, 1955 p. 200). Omnipotent is to be all powerful. Omniscient is to be all knowing and to be perfectly good means that God would prevent a morally bad event from ever happening (Swinburne, 1998 p. 13). In the problem of evil, God’s powers are taken at face value, and applied to God’s inaction to evil on earth. People who argue against the topic of evil typically make generalizations on the attributes that God

It was once suggested that evil was simply the absence of good, and while this statement is not entirely false, it is a vast understatement to the reality that is an all-powerful, omnipotent, God, or good, and ever scheming, ever tormenting enemy of all things good, or evil. This false dichotomy is equivocal to the argument that black is simply the absence of white. It is correct to state that there is no white in black, but the reality is much more complicated than that. Black is an amalgamation of all colors on the color wheel, not just the subtraction of white. Likewise, evil includes the absence of good, but also includes many other elements such as, “people [just being] people; petty, self-absorbed, stupid, unadmirable, but not wicked” (Ryken, 307) in the words of Susan Wise Bauer. Or, as she later states, “this is how the evildoers of Scripture are portrayed, as ordinary men and women who, for whatever psychological reasons, open the door to transcendent evil—and willingly leave it cracked.” (Ryken, 310) There is good, there is evil, and there is a great deal of ambiguity in the middle. These ideas provide evidence that evil is much more then simple the absence of good. This knowledge, as well as addressing the modern world’s perception of good and evil will be further scrutinized through the course of this essay.

Nelson Pike shows that St. Thomas Aquinas presents three possible solutions to the problem regarding the incoherence between God’s inability to sin and His omnipotence, or ability to do anything. Only the third solution will be discussed in this paper. St. Thomas’ goal is to prove that God can coherently be both omnipotent and impeccable. In this instance, impeccable means perfectly good and lacking evil. At this point, it may be helpful to specify how the terms “good” and “evil’ will be used moving forward. In his discussion, Pike defines “evil” as “Any situation which is such that if one were to (knowingly) bring it about (though it is avoidable), that individual would be morally reprehensible” (212). This definition should suit our purposes,

‘The Problem of Evil’ by John Leslie Mackie is a philosophical argument that discusses the logical paradoxes and impossibilities of God’s existence. Written in 1955, it details how Mackie believes that because God is represented as an omnipotent (perfectly-powerful) and omnibenevolent (wholly good) being, evil cannot exist and thus neither can God. I will explain those paradoxes and defend Mackie’s argument, but I shall will question the justification of his claims to God’s existence. I shall also provide and discuss three theistic objections to the problem of evil, both adequate and fallacious.

Introduction: The problem of evil is, in my opinion, the best point of departure for a fruitful dialogue between Christianity, traditionally conceived, and those strands of modern philosophy which have been perceived--indeed, have sometimes perceived themselves--as a threat to that tradition. As such, I will attempt first, to outline the problem of evil in the starkest terms possible, presenting Augustine's approach to its solution followed by a critical analysis; second, to present an alternative approach to the questions which give rise to the problem--an approach derived in large part from Spinoza and Nietzsche; and, third, to show how this more philosophically acceptable alternative can be expressed

Where does evil come from?” With all of these questions stemming from the topic of evil, at its root is a problem. This problem is “How can a God that is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good allow evil to exist in the world?” In her book Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God, Marilyn Adams states that “the traditional problem of evil gives crisp focus to a difficulty in understanding the relationship between God and evil.” She later presents that there is a prima facie obstacle that must be true.

Throughout human existence, questions have arisen concerning the nature of good and evil. Many scientist, philosophers, and theologians have been intrigued by these questions. Through Augustine's Confessions and E. O. Wilson's In Search of Nature, one is accessible to two distinct perspectives concerning the nature of good and evil.

If, at t2 S does not perform act p, then God was wrong at time t1. This means that God is fallible, which is unacceptable to both myself and Aquinas, so in this case if God knew last week that I would decide to drink French roast coffee instead of orange juice today, then I had no choice but to drink French roast coffee. Both Aquinas and I agree that God is not fallible, but Aquinas is willing to give up creaturely freedom in order to prove it. The importance of creaturely freedom is that, because traditional Christian thought contains the notion of divine judgment, creatures should be responsible for their actions.

I believe that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Too often I feel as though many people are always looking for someone or something to blame for the negativity they experience. This selfish act leads many to become hostile and turn away from God. God gave us free will, which allows us to make our own choices with our own discretion. The majority of us know the difference between good and bad or moral and immoral. On a day to day basis, whether they are minor or life-changing, we make decisions that have outcomes that can potentially make an impact on life (significant/insignificant). Some people do have it harder than others, in which they experience more of a struggle. I do believe we are always presented with options and

A theodicy is a defense of God's goodness in light of the existence of evil. There are different ways of making an argument that constitutes a theodicy, and in this paper I would like to concentrate on three different styles, and analyze them in terms of their strengths and weaknesses. The first type of theodicy is known informally as the "greater good" argument: it suggests that the evil that is permitted by God is outweighed by his goodness, and is permitted in the course of establishing some greater good. The second type of theodicy is based on the concept of free will: to some extent it is a subset of the "greater good" argument, for it holds that God permits human free will (and therefore the possibility of evil being done) as a greater good. The third theodicy hinges upon the idea of a natural order: this posits that God's goodness is manifest in the establishment of a natural order of things in which evil plays a role. Each of these styles of theodicy has its good and bad aspects, and it is worth examining them in some greater depth individually.

The presence of unnecessary evil in the world has sparked controversy about the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient being. The problem of evil, in its most basic sense, claims that the evil in the world is unnecessary and contradictory to the existence of God. In this essay I will briefly summarize the logical problem of evil given by J. L. Mackie and the evidential problem of evil provided by William Rowe. I will then dispute that these arguments are irrelevant because humans are incredibly limited and cannot comprehend the purposes of God. I will then present an objection to my argument claiming that despite not knowing God’s true intentions humans have subjectively defined suffering and as such an all-good and all-knowing

One argument that is often presented against the belief of Christians, more precisely that of the existence of God, is the problem of evil; and many apologists have continued to counter the questions and disputes. The problem of evil suggests that, if God truly exists, and is in fact good, then the evil we see in the world would not exist. How could a good God allow the rape of women and children? Or, how can a good God see the poverty and starvation of millions around the globe and do nothing? These are just a couple of questions among many. Two apologists, David Hart and Alvin Plantinga have addressed this issue that plagues many, both in the minds of unbelievers, as well as believers. To explore the approaches of each of these men, let

How does evil happen? How can we explain evil? Philosophers have debated on evil. B.C. Johnson who believes that God can chose to prevent evil. Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote Ivan Karamazov that he cannot accept God’s grand scheme of suffering. However, John Hick concluded that God is giving us free-will and soul-making. Nonetheless, I will be discussing that God is giving us free-will and soul-making. Then, I will discuss how God is responsible for the evil and suffering. Lastly, I will be proving how God is not responsible for evil/suffering, yet, he is giving us free-will and soul-making.