Leibniz's Argument

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,

“In saying that things are not good by virtue of any rule of goodness but solely by virtue of the will of God, it seems to me that we unknowingly destroy all of God 's love and all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing the exact contrary?”(1)Therefore there must be some moral standards independent of God that would be right or wrong regardless of his being. This conclusion creates another problem, it could mean that God has no freewill as he can not then act outside of the presupposed good morals and therefore can not make his own decisions. If there are moral standards independent of God and his will then that would limit God 's sovereignty. It binds God to something that makes him not independent. Instead of the good being established by him he is established by what is good and in essence a new “god” is created. This is used as a common argument for atheism, For if morality can exist without God there is no need to answer for the inherent sense of morale that humanity has in some context no matter what culture they are raised in.

The consequences of accepting that the goodness of actions consists simply in the fact that God favours them are obviously disagreeable. However, the consequences of accepting the alternative also appear unfortunate. If it is maintained that God favours certain actions because they are objectively good, it seems that their goodness is independent of His will. But such a view appears to be inconsistent with the conception of God as the omnipotent creator and sustainer of all that is. It means that there is a realm of moral values which exist quite apart from God's creative will and to which His will must conform. Such a view must inevitably appear blasphemous to all those who believe in God, for it makes God out to be less than He is.

Leibniz's position is that, if things are neither right nor wrong independently of God's will, then God cannot choose one thing over another because it is right. Thus, if he does choose one over another, his choice must be arbitrary. But a being whose decisions are arbitrary is not a being worthy of worship.

The only thing that God can do, and does all of the time, is to draw good from any evil

J. L. Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence” criticizes the argument that God exists by showing that religious beliefs are positively irrational and that parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another. The problem of evil is one of the oldest problems in philosophy. The problem of evil is a logical problem for only the people who believe that there is a God who is both (1) omnipotent and (2) wholly good; yet (3) evil exists in the world. If God is wholly good and omnipotent, then how can there be a presence of evil in the world. Given the presence of evil, we must either conclude that God does not have the power to prevent the suffering that evil causes in which case God is not omnipotent or that God does not wish

Being all powerful means he can execute and accomplish any given task, meaning God in truth can fix and change anything and everything for the better. And if God is all-knowing, then God should already know the outcome and destination of every single individual in the world. Lastly, if God is all caring then he is looking for our best interest. God wants us to live comfortably among each other. And if we do in truth live comfortably and everyone lives comfortably among one another then. It would enable a world where wars are extinguished, along with crime and poverty. But that is not the case. God willingly watch us live our lives miserably in an even more miserable world. A world where humans, animals are placed in a chain; where our very own survival is based upon fitness. So in actuality this happens to be false, and if this is false then god is not genuinely all-caring. If god is actually all-knowing, all-powerful, all-caring, he would do something about this. He has the power to intervene and change things but for reasons unknown chooses otherwise

Ernest Nagel identifies that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and loving. However, if God has all of those traits, then why would He allow evil? This is where the problem of evil comes in. It says that if God exists, he is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. Because God is omniscient, He knows when evil occurs. Since He is omnipotent, He has the power to prevent it and his benevolent nature would permit him to stop evil. Yet, evil occurs anyways. Therefore, a God with such traits does not

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

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.

This is a great blow against classic theology that describes God as all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, ect… However, the process theologians argue that God is the most-powerful being, the most-knowing being, and the most-good being that could exist. This slight change in thinking complete attacks the view of the classical theologian’s views in their perfect God. In process theology many arguments are made to fight the “all” standing of the classical Theologians. Arguments that point the inconsistency of an all-powerful and all-good God that allows evil to exist in the world. A popular response to the existence of evil is that God graced humanity with the gift of free will. However, the process theologians have asked how an all knowing God can allow free will, if he knows what everyone will choose. These two arguments against that “all” God have allowed the process to take a slightly weaker stance, the “most” God. This allows God to know the most possible, but not necessarily all future events. And therefore free will is plausible and evil can exist in a world where an extremely good and extremely powerful God also

First, many theologians have assumed that if God is all-powerful, omnipotent, which the Bible clearly teaches (e.g., 1Chron 29:11; Jer 32:17; Mt 19:26; Rev 1:8; 19:6), that nothing in his creation can ever thwart his will. At the very least, it is reasoned, God

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

LEIBNIZ’S CONCEPTION OF THE PROBLEM OF EVIL BY OKOJIE E. PETER epo4escriva@yahoo.com MAY 2013 INTRODUCTION For many centuries, philosophers have been discussing evil, how it exists in the world, and how this relates to God. The discussion on evil and its relations to us is not an easy one though. It is commonly called the problem of evil. The problem of evil in contemporary philosophy is generally regarded as an argument for atheism. The atheist contends that God and evil are incompatible, and given that evil clearly exists, God cannot exist. The problem is generally used to disprove God’s existence by showing an inconsistency between an all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing God; and the existence of evil. Philosophers over the centuries

Omnipotent quite literally means all powerful, Omni- all, potent-powerful. Most theists believe there to be one all-powerful, perfect being, so the idea of an omnipotent being is essential to most western religions. I will focus on Christianity, throughout my essay to allow me to focus on the question without getting sucked into discussing the different religious point of views. So the God we speak of is the traditional Christian one unless otherwise specified. There are plenty of quotes directly from the bible that promotes God as all-powerful, though omnipotent is a later word. “The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power; in his justice and great righteousness, he does not oppress.” (Job 37:23) The discussion of how to define God is an essential one to theists as it can cause a lot of problems. If for example, we raise questions such as if God is all powerful why is there suffering in the world? Before we can move on to problems with this definition and other definitions we first need to look at them in some more depth. In