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. Epicurus’ questions or paradox, as it has come to be known, goes as follows, “If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to? Then he is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Evil as Disproof of a Perfect God Proving the existence of God is a tricky matter. The fact that no definitive empirical evidence for God exists is not the proof of non-existence. In other words the “absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence”, (Carl Sagan). To refute the existence of a theistic God, one would have to provide some sort of proof against the notion. Theologians have long struggled over the philosophical problem of evil.
Human life is often times full of cruelty and suffering, there are innocent people who die every minute of everyday. If God is fair and just as well as omnipotent then why does he allow bad things to happen to innocent people? God is often times referred to as the Holy Father, what kind of father would allow an innocent child to starve to death or allow one of his children to be beaten and raped. Many theists believe that there is a higher divine plan, and the reason evil exists and bad things occur is because it is part of this plan. It is not a question whether evil exists in the world.
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. But this could also just lead us back to the original problem, bringing to mind the thought that if God is able to do anything and everything, then he should be able to create a perfect world with no evil. The fifth premise states simply “But, there’s evil.” Laurence distinguishes between the two different kinds of evil when explaining this argument. He says that natural evil can
Explain the nature of the problem of evil The problem of evil was first formulated by the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus who identified that the qualities of the God of classical theism (omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence) cannot be reconciled with the undeniable fact that there are evil calamities striking all the time in the form of natural and moral evil, and metaphysical (as Leibniz also suggests, originating from the concept that the world although created by God is imperfect). Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Agnosticism is the purely epistemological stance that sufficient evidence does not exist for or against theism therefore the best stance on the argument is no stance at all. Combinations of these positions are possible due to their varying natures, but here only the argument between theism and atheism is examined more closely. The problem of evil is described and used to argue against the existence of God. Richard Swinburne’s solution to the problem of evil is explained and used to revise the original atheist’s argument from evil to its best, but still insufficient, form. Commonly, atheists hold the view that organized religions are corrupt and actually cause more harm than good.
It typically fashions itself in a question such as this. How can a good God allow so much evil to take place if He loves us? This is often asked by but not limited to someone who has been hurt while serving God faithfully or by someone who has no significant knowledge of who God truly is. The problem of evil also presents itself as more of a statement rather than a question as well. If God is all powerful and in complete control why does he allow such evil things to take place?
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.
Evil is something caused by living things with free will which is intended to cause harm or misery to something or someone else, though different people have different views on what evil is. One argument is the atheist argument, and that God can’t exist if he allows evil. John Mill, an atheist philosopher, says that God can’t be real because if he was then he would not allow this much suffering to happen, especially to innocent people. Another non-religious view is that sometimes bad things happen, not because a ‘God’ has made it, but just because not everything that happens in the world is good. For example, there was a mini-bus crash where 12 children and a teacher were killed, and an atheist would say the mini-bus and lorry were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that it certainly did not have anything to do with God.
An omnipotent God would be able to prevent evil if he wanted to. A God both omnipotent and omnibenevolent would both want to and be able to prevent evil. P2 states that evil and suffering do exist, making it apparent that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good Gods existence would be almost impossible. If a tri-omni god existed, then evil would not be able to exist The biggest weakness of the argument will be P1 that if an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good God exists, then evil and suffering would not exist. 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.