Surely and all loving (omnibenevolent) God wouldn’t allow this. Human Evil is where people cause harm to others and create chaos. Why would God create a world that consists of evil and cruelty? therefore Mill questions the idea of an omnibenevolent God, however if it is disagreed that God isn’t all loving then it could suggest that God doesn’t know of our suffering and could mean that omniscience cannot possibly be an attribute of God. Mill would say that if God is omniscient then surely he is aware of our suffering and would therefore intervene in the evil as he loves us all.
Biblical texts state that God is forgiving, merciful, loving, omnipotent and above all, good. Yet how can it be true that God forgave the Jewish people for their sins and had the power to prevent the Holocaust but did not do so? It leads to the notion that either God is not all powerful so was not capable of thwarting the atrocities of World War 2, or God is not altogether caring and merciful. Ignaz Maybaum examined this concept further by stating that the Holocaust was God’s judgement over the past. He believed that “Hitler served as a divine instrument for the reconstruction of modern Jewish life.” In his mind it was clear that the death of 6 million Jews took place because as a community, Jews are responsible for each other’s actions and there had been enough sin for God to take necessary action.
I have concluded from my own life experiences that God is not responsible for evil. I strongly believe in Jehovah the all mighty! I reference the holy bible in Genesis. Evil is in the world not because God created it, but because we are created with free will. Mankind was led astray by Satan who is ultimately the cause for evil.
Therefore, Wiles comes to the conclusion that God's goodness and the concept of miracles are two incompatible ideas. When discussing God's omnibenevolemce, Wiles introduces the nature of God and its impact on miracles. However, this also anthropomorphises him. As humans, with a limited knowledge of what the word 'good' means, Maimonedes states that it would be disrespectful to attribute this equivocal concept to an unlimited God. We cannot judge God, nor his actions because he is a non cognitive being.
The Jews viewed the Gentile culture as unrighteous and not worthy of redemption. But Paul’s words exonerated that claim by the justification of faith of the Gentiles. Again, similarities between culture and human relationships in the biblical perspective, view all people as a creation of God in His
Augustine defends the god of theism by rejecting the existence of evil as a force or power opposed to god as it would reject the premise that god is omnipotent. Below are the ways in which he justifies moral and natural evil, which respectively mean evil caused by human acts, and evil events caused by the processes of nature. To justify evil, he solves the problem by defining evil as a ‘privation’ – which means when something is ‘evil’, it is not defined to contain bad qualities but is seen to be falling short of perfection, or what it is expected to be. Take a rapist as an example. Adopting Augustine’s idea of ‘evil’, we are to say that he is not living up to standards expected of human beings.
Though Romans says that human nature is that we are sinners. Human beings are slaves to sin and seem to be powerless against it. We understand that we are not righteous at all, and that we need a relationship with God, so that we can be empowered by His righteous. His righteous comes through our faith in Jesus Christ. Only he can redeem, justify, and sanctify us, and we need all three for our salvation.
Right? One would think so, but obviously that was not the case. This is the first major difference between the two stories. In Genesis, there is a much more acceptable reason for God to eliminate mankind. The humans are so wicked and evil that, "It repented the Lord that he had made man on the
As Dennis McCallum explains in The Problem of Evil, there are more than a few ways to prove or disprove God. The most interesting and well thought out argument is the attack based on the persistence of evil. This attack uses the argument that if God were good and all-powerful he would destroy evil, but since evil still exists, there is no such God. Whether this attack is saying that God is not good or that there is no God at all is unclear, but I see it as saying that there is no God. If there truly were a God who was good, why would he let all the unnecessary pain and suffering happen in the world?
He suggests that evil has an instrumental value in developing human virtues, he believes that sins are necessary many good things would be taken away if God permitted no evil to exist, ‘for fire would not be generated if air was corrupted’ therefore evil has some sort of good. For Aquinas God is good and knows about evil in the world however does not predetermine it. The world is not perfect but it is the best it can possibly be, God can still be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient and still