God's Omnipotence

The beauty of the problem of evil is its simplicity. David Hume displays the problem well by questioning the existence of God and evil. For, if both God and evil exist, God must either be “willing to prevent evil, but not able” or “able, but not willing”. Hume shows that there seems to be a problem with God and evil coexisting. For, with an all good entity

Before we begin our journey into the analysis of omnipotence, we need to frame this term within a particular definition, so that our discussion of the word will stay focused and clear. The word omnipotent itself means something having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force. Or in more modern and easy to understand terms: all-powerful. However, there is a caveat to such a simple definition. If we impose the meaning of the word omnipotence itself as the functional definition of one of God’s divine attributes, we encounter some problems. These problems were recognized early on in church history. The first problem that I will address is whether divine omnipotence means the ability to do anything, or whether it means the ability to a particular set of things. “But how art thou omnipotent, if thou art not capable of all things?” According to Anselm, we need to distinguish acts of doing into two categories. One category is the act of doing something that is powerful. The second category is the act of doing something that is impotent, or showing weakness. When a being performs an act that is impotent, it also gives the forces which are contrary to that being greater power over itself. An example that Anselm gives to demonstrate an impotent act is the ability to become corrupted. Being corruptible is worse than being incorruptible. When you are corruptible,

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.

The question that was posed in this week’s discussion had me pondering not only what I felt about the statement, “God is good,” but also what the book referred to as a prerequisite that adhered to the statement. First I would like to take a look at what the author of the book refers to as “good” when referencing God. J.L. Mackie’s principle states, “It follows that a good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely, and then the propositions that a good omnipotent things exists, and that evil exists, are incompatible” (Davies 209). This statement made by Mackie would suggest that if there was a good omnipotent “thing,” evil would not exist. Mackie believes that since evil exists, then there must not be a God. Mackie also points out a contradiction

God allows evil to exist because evil is absorbed by greater good. (John Mackie). Specifically, if free will exists then people have the choice to either choose good or evil. The benefit of having free will outweighs the disadvantage of the possibility of the evil option being chosen, and thus allows for the existence of evil, supporting the reality of god. If we are free to choose, even though we may choose evil, the evil is absorbed by the benefit of free will. John Mackie presented the absorption argument, which was used to argue for the theist reply to the problem of evil.

This is a significant problem to the revealed religions because they believe in a wholly good and omnipotent God. Why then, would this God allow evil? In this paper, I will provide, explain, and evaluate St. Augustine of Hippo’s

In Richard Swinburne’s Natural Evil, he argues that the free will defense accounts for the existence of evil. Following Swinburne’s example, I will argue that the Problem of Evil does not give us good reason to believe that an omnipotent, benevolent deity does not exist. To do so, I will first summarize Epicurus’ original question of the problem of evil. Then, I will defend my claim by proposing the free will defense. Furthermore, I will discuss how the concepts of benevolence and omnipotence are inconsistent with the definition of God according to the free will defense. Lastly, I will address and respond to a possible objection to my argument.

The problem of evil is a deductive a priori argument who’s goal is to prove the non-existence of God. In addition to Mackie’s three main premises he also introduces some “quasi-logical” rules that give further evidence to his argument. First he presumes that a good thing will eliminate evil to the extent that it can and second, that omnipotence has no limits. From these two “additional

evil creates or brings good. Yet, if there was only good we would not have to

If God is both omnipotent and wholly good, then He would make men freely choose good on every occasion.

The attribute of the omnipotence of God can’t be limited to pure physical power but is also entangled into his other attributes as well. In this paper, I will briefly touch on God being morally perfect, and His omniscience. The second half of this paper I will focus on the paradox of the Stone while demonstrating that God's knowledge also becomes part of his power as well. First, the definition of omnipotence needs to be addressed due to different interpretations based on an individual’s worldview. Philosopher’s such as Descartes considered God all powerful even defying the laws of logic.

This paper examines St. Augustine’s view on evil. St. Augustine believed that God made a perfect world, but that God's creatures turned away from God of their own free will and that is how evil originated in the world. Augustine assumes that evil cannot be properly said to exist at all, he argues that the evil, together with that suffering which is created as punishment for sin, originates in the free nature of the will of all creatures. According to Augustine, God has allowed evil to exist in the world because it does not conflict with his righteousness. He did not create evil but is also not a victim of it. He simply allows it to exist.

The theological problem of evil is a problem that many philosophers have tried to solve. The problem is stated as, "if one believes that god is omnipotent and wholly good, why does evil still exist?" In this writing I will discuss the solutions/propositions of John L. Mackie in his work, "Evil and Omnipotence." I will do this in order to illustrate the concept of free will for understanding or resolving the problem, and to reveal how and why Mackie arrives at his conclusions.

Whether or not evil is the absence of good is a question that has puzzled Christians since the time of St. Augustine of Hippo. In The Confessions of St. Augustine, he initiates this premise and argues in its favor. Discourse about evil is based on the Christian theological teachings of the omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect benevolence of God as well as the understanding that evil is present in this world. Since these four concepts are contradictory, one of them must be rejected. Thus, St. Augustine argues that evil does not exist. I find St. Augustine’s explanation to be satisfying.

The problem of evil is as ancient as humanity itself. Since the dawn of man, thinkers, philosophers, religionists and practically every human being who have suffered at the hands of evil have pondered this enigma, either as a logical-intellectual-philosophical or emotional-religious-existential problem. The preponderance of evil as a reality in human existence, and