Omniscient Essay: The Problem Of Evil

The Story, The Possibility of Evil is a truly interesting story that demonstrates the evil of a community that seems almost perfect. This story demonstrates how there is probably no place on Earth that evil has not reached. The story bases itself on a small suburban town and the people that live there. The reader meets Miss Strangeworth who is a sweet little lady that smiles to everyone during the day and starts conversations, but by the time she gets home she starts writing letters revealing secrets and unpleasant facts of her neighbours and fellow townspeople and

“The problem of evil is often divided between the logical and evidential problems.” At the heart of each problem is the belief that the existence of God and the existence evil are incompatible. They present an “either/or” dilemma: either God

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.

In his 2004 City Journal article, Theodore Dalrymple expresses his view on the tremendous decline in the quality of life in Great Britain. He believed that society has accepted the notion that people are not responsible for their own problems. Also, that it is the “moral cowardice of the intellectual and political elites” that perpetuates the social dynamics that are responsible for the continuing decline of British society. According to the author, a physician about to retire after a career treating criminal justice offenders and victims, there are several pervasive misconceptions that explain the continuing decline of British society.

John Hick discusses in his essay The Problem of Evil, the objections to the belief in the existence of God is the presence of evil in the world. He begins by posing the traditional challenge to theism in the form of the dilemma: That if God was perfectly loving, he must wish to abolish evil, and being all powerful, is able to perfectly do so as he will its. He then proceeds to present some views regarding this issue, giving insights from three point of views, that of contemporary Christian Science, the Boston Personalist school, and the theologian Augustine. The first opinion takes evil as an illusion, as a construct of the human mind. The second confers upon God finity, God as a struggling ruler,

On the topic of the existence of God, Ernest Nagel and Richard Swinburne have construct arguments that challenge one another. In Nagel’s article, “Does God Exist?” he argues that if God is all-powerful, omniscient, and benevolent; he would know when evil occurs and has the power to prevent it. Because evil occurs, God does not exist. This is the problem of evil. Challenging Nagel, the article by Swinburne, “Why God Allows Evil,” argues that God has the right to allow moral and natural evils to occur because those evils reap greater goods that make the lives of human-beings meaningful. He extends his argument to the idea that God seeks to provide human beings with goods such as freewill and responsibility of not only ourselves, but of the world and others. While Nagel utilizes the problem of evil as an objection to the existence of God, Swinburne employs it to show that God allows evil to occur to provide human beings with goods that go beyond moments of pleasure and joys of happiness.

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

This problem is called into question in John Perry’s “Dialogue on Good, Evil, and the Existence of God”. Sam Miller is a firm believer in God and understands the coexistence of God and evil, Gretchen Weirob is an atheist philosopher that questions Miller’s beliefs, and Dave Cohen acts as a neutral party to mediate the debate. Miller visits a sick

The problem of evil (the problem of suffering) is an argument against the existence of God

In the early 21st century much evil has risen, such as terrorism, poverty, convivial dispute and the continual surge of natural disasters destroying land, homes and killing thousands of people. With all of this famine humans are experiencing on a daily basis, it seems inconceivable that an omnipotent, all-loving, ontologically separate God can exist. Despite the theists arguments via the Freewill and Teleological defence, both have many flaws and weaknesses due to the lack of supporting evidence and on occasions contradicting the Christian religion itself. The only explanation that acts as a strong asset for the co-existence of God is the Transpersonal Solipsism ideology. However, it still produces doubts on Gods existence being ontologically separate. The issue of “How can God exist when there is evil in the world” is highly regarded as the strongest challenge towards Gods existence, however moral evil, produced by humans, is a result of freewill, which God granted all humans. If freewill is not a logical impossibility for man to choose good, then there is no logical impossibility of man choosing good for every occasion. The fact that moral evil does exist proves that humans are not perfect and if God is omnipotent and perfect, then a perfect god should have made perfect things.

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

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

How we view the presence of God and evil depends on why we believe the world was created. If man is a fully created creature then the world was created for him to live in, a comfortable, pleasant place. Our world is obviously filled with suffering, danger, hardship of all kinds, so an all-powerful God could not have created it. To Christians the world is not a paradise where one can experience the maximum of pleasure and a minimum of pain. The world is a place of “soul making” or person making. As we try and understand the challenges of our lives, and our environment we may become “Children Of 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