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.
Mill later struggled with the concepts of utilitarianism because it was too unemotional and failed to capture or understand the ‘higher’ pleasure of happiness without pain. Bentham’s theory failed to acknowledge the complexities like emotion. However, Mill did not reject Bentham’s ideas of pleasure fulfillment; he created a more complex version of utilitarianism, yet one that still embraces the most basic premises of Bentham and of his father, James Mill. Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." Mill defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain.
He sees the world as the be all and end all, there is no other world in which to escape to. No heaven or hell to hold him accountable for his actions on Earth, giving him a freedom Christians do not have. The teachings of Christ implore we humans to be charitable, to do un to others as you would have them do unto you. Nietzsche Übermensch sees charity as an unproductive activity, not providing any enhancement to his aims, and as such, not worth doing. Having said the Übermensch is solitary and aloof, this also brings into question human nature.
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
The idea of this has partially to do with the fact that Sartre was an atheist. He did not believe that there was any higher power or God that put humans on Earth. Because of this, humans do not discover their meaning but rather create it themselves. This philosophy is a more optimistic philosophy regarding existentialism and is good to follow because it shows that human beings are able to get the meaning that they want out of their own life instead of following a meaning that has been forced upon them since before birth. It also lets humans be responsible for the decisions they make.
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. When dealing with an issue such as pollution for example, a follower of natural law could interpret it as evil as it contributes to the destruction of God’s creation, and also causing harm to some humans in the form of asthma. The theory would eradicate pollution altogether, though this is very unrealistic as pollution has to be committed in some degree in order for the world to function as it does today. Therefore natural law is of no use when dealing with issues concerning the environment due to the fact that its arguments cannot be applied to every situation. A further way in which natural law
This is called the inconsistent triad. David Hume thus believed that God is either not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent or evil does not exist. According to Mackie, each of these possibilities answers the problem of evil but none of them are orthodox. Since we have sufficient direct experience to support the existence of evil, if God exists he is either an impotent God or a malicious God — not the God of classical theism. Hume and Mackie conclude that God therefore does not exist.
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.
God is also personal as he is not a depersonalised force. He cares about his creations and caring beings are not created by uncaring beings. God wants us to act towards each other with justice and mercy; if god weren’t personal he wouldn’t mind what we did and would not tell us what to do. God is good because if he wasn’t he would be oxymoron, he would not be able to demand goodness if he was not good. God rules by moral standards.
We, humans, do not need to belong to any religion in order to have a sense of moral right or wrong. Moral righteousness is natural, and not centered on supernatural faith. Morality is a product of social, not spiritual interaction. Unfortunately, the mistaken idea that humans cannot be good without professing a belief in the ‘supreme being’ or without belonging to a religion is one that is dominant in most societies across the world. This mistaken idea is largely responsible for lack of progress in those areas of human life where religions exercise