A God who is omniscient would know everyway evil could come into existence and would know how to stop every form of these evils. A God who is omnibenevolent would want to prevent all evils. A God who knows everyway evil can exist, who is able to stop evil from even coming into existence and wants to have no evil in the world, definitely could stop the existence of evil. If such a being exists then evil must not exist in this world. This turns out to be a logical contradiction, as stated previously, evil does exist in this world in many different forms, so this being of which no greater can be conceived must not exist.
God is the knower of all things past and present and has the divine power to do anything. The problem of evil is that it calls into question these key features of the theistic God. If he possesses these qualities then how could he allow such a great degree of human suffering in the world? Present evil suggests that God either lacks
If God is all knowing and all powerful and all good, therefore god would not want us to suffer and not put evil on earth. I believe that evil and suffering does exist because of the simple fact that we wouldn’t know the difference between good and bad, sad and happiness, love and hate. We wouldn’t know to appreciate god and everything he does for us. God being an all tri-omni god would not put anything on earth that he knew we couldn’t handle. There are two varieties of evil, moral and natural evil.
B. Swinburne claims that if there is a God, the occurrence of evils is to be expected. C. If the theist cannot explain why the co-existence of God and Evil is possible, then his belief in God is not rational. II. Moral Evil: Any evil doing that does harms to others and is done by humans with intents. A.
Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? Evil occurrences present a major challenge to believers because they are caught in a contradiction because they cannot say that God exists and evil exists. This is called the inconsistent triad.
He is malevolent. Is God both able and willing? Then whence commeth the evil. If he is neither able nor willing then why call him god?” This is called the inconsistent triad; if God has all these Omni qualities then why does evil still remain on earth? Augustine’s soul deciding theodicy was the demonstration that God is not responsible for the existence of evil.
There are situations in which God would have to compromise in terms of his attributes in order to be all-knowing. The first difficulty is that there are some things that are impossible for God to do. For example, Can God know lust? As we know, God is, and has to be morally perfect and morally right. If God breaks this, then he is not being omnibenevolent (all good), which is another of his attributes.
The first premise states that “If there is evil, God either isn’t willing or isn’t able to prevent it.” The idea of a God who is neither willing nor able to do something is almost immediately equating to no God. Without even delving further into the argument, we can already see where these premises are leading. The second premise states that “If God is all powerful, he can prevent it” and the third states that “If God is perfectly good, God will prevent it if God can.” There is no denying that the Judeo-Christian possibly Islamic God is supposed to be both all powerful and perfectly good (as stated in the fourth premise of the argument). However, Laurence also mentions that perhaps it just does not make sense for there to be a world without evil, bringing to light the validity of the second and third premises. He speaks of how a world with humans is better than a world without, and because of this it is just does not make sense to have a world without evil.
He is half correct in his statement as a theist does not believe in the proofs individually, but finds enough evidence in them to form the belief that God does exist; He is the creator of the universe, and He is morally perfect. McCloskey touches on faith in his article. It is defined by Tillich: as the state of being ultimately concerned as claiming truth for concern, and is involving commitment, courage, and the taking of risk. Theists have faith in God, and treat Him as the most important person in their lives. To have faith in someone on past knowledge, according to McCloskey, is reasonable however; it is unreasonable to have faith in God as we have no past knowledge of God.
If God is assumed to be good, then all of his actions are good, and this would include the creation of right and wrong. The idea of “wrong” would never exist in this case as God only does and creates things that are good. While the author never gives up the idea of God being good, as he states that all theologians also believe this and then proceeds to brainstorm potential reasoning for the creation of “wrong.” He suggests that a deity, more superior than God, gave him orders to do so. This is a plausible conclusion to the premise of God being good, but also creating right and wrong. But he seems more certain about the idea of the devil creating this