In order to be morally perfect both good and evil must exist outside of God so that he can choose it. The only way for a being to be morally perfect is for an evil to exist that is not chosen. If God destroys all evil, moral perfection becomes impossible because the choice not to do evil will no longer exist. If God is omnipotent, omniscient , and morally perfect he is constrained not to destroy all evil by his own definition of existence. The property or constraint of being morally perfect is as important as omnipotence.
Now in this world there is a balance of everything that is how order is kept in this world therefore for every good thing that happens there will be something bad following. I will be arguing why god allows evil and how he gives us free will to choose from good or evil. God didn't create evil. Evil is only a lacking of good. God is good, and the things that He created are meant to be good.
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.
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.
A follower of natural law would say that the statement is flawed, and that the theory can be extremely useful when dealing with issues concerning the environment. However, there are those who would believe otherwise, and suggest an alternative ethical approach to be more appropriate. One way in which natural law is of no use when dealing with issues concerning the environment is that some rules formulated by the theory do not work when applied. For example, Aquinas’ synderesis rule of ‘do good, avoid evil’ is the foundation of his ethical theory, this principle implying that the exploitation and abuse of the environment would be wrong as it is regarded as evil. Despite this, his synderesis rule consequently cannot be applied to all situations when dealing with issues concerning the environment as it is impossible to ‘avoid evil’ completely.
He further explains that the evil deeds that we perform are of our own accord, and that we are punished by God’s justice because they are done out of our own free will. This argument leads perfectly into the question of free will because, like Aug, I agree that we are not taught evil. Aug explains to Ev that it is impossible to learn evil deeds. It is impossible to learn something evil because our intelligence is inherently good. Since our intelligence is inherently good it is not possible to take away from something that is good, something that is evil.
If my reason erroneously commands me to do something evil, can I have a good will? Why or why not? In this essay I will support the claim that one can have a good will if their reason erroneously commands them to do something evil if the evil act is antecedent. It was also asked if the statements “I loved evil even if it served no purpose” and “Evil would never be sought, not even incidentally, unless the good involving evil were to be sought more than the good evil takes away” could be reconciled. Why or why not?
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.
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.
The concept of morality is mysterious is saying that just because god says its right to slap a child doesn’t really make it right. It’s just one way of looking at it. This conception of morality makes God’s commands arbitrary. This is saying that God is the only one who can create reason for his sayings. This conception of morality provides the wrong reasons for moral principles.