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.
There’s even a term coined “moralistic atheists”. These are the atheist who offended people think that they lack morality by giving up God. It seems Atheists find moral value within the natural world and beings that it possesses, and to respond to the vulnerabilities and capacities in others. The Pope attacked Marxism for opposing religion "as a kind of idealistic illusion to be fought with the most suitable means and methods according to circumstances of time and place, in order to eliminate it from society and from man's very heart." He said atheism" is the ideology of 'the death of man.'
Despite the many similarities between the two stories, the differences are revealed in a number of different topics that distinguish the biblical version of the story from the ancient version. In both versions of the flood story something angers God, in the Bible, and the gods, in Gilgamesh. "The uproar of mankind is intolerable and sleep is no longer possible by reasons of the babel" (Gilgamesh 12). The Gilgamesh reason seems very illogical. The Gods decide to destroy mankind because they are making too much noise.
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.
b. Dostoyevsky points out the terrible suffering and cruelty there is in the world. How might that undermine Pascal’s argument? “The Wager” by Pascal is a reading about the risk of choosing between the existence of God and the nonexistence of God. Pascal argues that people will have everything to gain if they choose to believe in the existence of God but they will lose nothing if they do believe and are wrong. I disagree with Pascal’s argument and I do not think it is a good one.
Soul-building evils are meant to force human beings to live through adversity and in turn strengthen our characters (Sober, pg. 111). Another criticism that exists to this second premise is called defense, which attempts to explain how evil can exist logically, given the existence of God (an all-PKG God) (“The Problem of Evil”). However, defense does not presuppose the existence of God or the existence of evil. If God and evil can
(3) The world contains moral evil. Therefore: (4) It is not the case that God exists. In response to these arguments, the “free will defiance” holds that God chose to create humankind to be free, and that evil is the result of society’s abuse of that freedom. This defiance applies only to moral evil because society does not and cannot control natural evils. Natural evils, by definition, are those evils that occur as the result of natural processes.
In a religious context, the word “evil” has connotations with devilry and going against the will of God. From purely this perspective, it can be strongly argued that Faustus is more evil than naïve. Through his attempt to “try the uttermost magic can perform” he makes a deal with the devil in order to give him powers above his biological and mental capabilities. Through making an agreement with Lucifer, Faustus is going against God’s will in the most explicit of ways – thus making him evil in a religious context. However, he doesn’t make this deal in order to achieve a certain goal: he is not attempting to find love or riches; he is purely attempting to gain power for what appears to be power’s sake.
FAITH AND THE CHALLENGE OF EVIL My argument will be faith and the challenge of evil. In a world that is full of malice, tragedy and disappointment, most people have a problem believing in God. If God is all-powerful and all-loving, why is there so much evil in the world? Would a world without evil be best for us? Would life without suffering be a good life for us?