However, in the case that he lacked omnibenevolence, evil would still cast a dark shadow in the world because perhaps God does not desire to relieve it. In actuality, God can be all three, and evil can and does exist. This is true because God is not responsible for the evil in the world. Evil blemishes the world wherever the world is lacking in goodness. If evil did not taint the world, the world would lack good and freewill, too.
The property or constraint of being morally perfect is as important as omnipotence. God is omnipotent within the constraint of also being morally perfect. It also means that if you use this definition of God, evil not only can exist it must. The philosophers had a lot to say about evil as well. They categorized them as natural evils and man-made ones.
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.
I contest that the will can be both necessitated and free through God’s grace and that the aforementioned terms are related through the twelve-step model of a human act. I will answer and connect these queries by exploring will and evil as investigated in Augustine’s On Free Choice of the Will and Aquinas’s A Summary of Philosophy and providing an example of a complete human act indicating at each step the role of intellect and will. An antecedent evil act is one in which the ignorance or misinformation is not voluntary and if the person committing the evil act becomes knowledgeable of their misinformation then remorse for their evil act is shown. While an antecedent evil act can be carried out by a good will, consequent and concomitant acts are those that are products of evil wills. Erroneous reason plays a large part in these acts as many make reasoned decisions based on misinformation; therefore to determine whether or not their will is good one must investigate why they were misinformed.
Philosophy 2000 The Problem of Evil Epicurus, an ancient philosopher, was the first to argue the problem of evil, attempting to understand how evil exists if a morally perfect being also exists. To understand the complex problem of evil we have to understand what God is believed to be and how that plays into the evil in this world. God is a being of which no greater can be conceived. This God or deity would be morally perfect in everyway. This being would be omnipotent or all-powerful, he would be omniscient or all knowing, he would be omnibenevolent or all good, and finally he would be omnipresent or everywhere you could imagine.
Augustine replies back to him which kind of evil is Ev talking about: the evil that men do and the evil that men suffer. Ev responds to him saying, “I want to know about both kinds of evil.” Aug begins to define while conversing with Ev by explaining that God gives justly to the righteous and the wicked what they deserve. The explanation is clear. God gives the righteous their rewards and the wicked he punishes justly, but the way we experience His justice is through suffering. 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.
The main argument, and the strongest in my opinion, is the Paradox of Omnipotence. The paradox poses the question: can an omnipotent being make things which he cannot subsequently control? One of the answers referring to this question has to do with causal law. The argument that good and evil must exist as opposites presupposes that God cannot create good without having to create evil. This means that God must not be omnipotent because “he” is bound by logical necessities and there are some limits to what God can do.
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
We are behaving morally, on the other hand, if we resist because we believe it is wrong to steal and that by stealing we would be treating someone else as a means to an end (e.g. for our own enrichment) which would be wrong in itself. Kant then goes on to argue that in an ideal world (one in which good was always rewarded and evil punished) moral behaviour (which would be in accordance with the categorical imperative) would always lead to happiness. In the real world, however, this does not necessarily happen. Therefore there must be
With the claim that God exists and God is not a deceiver Descartes, makes a worthy claim to the existence of an external world. Descartes is successfully in proving the external world, but his argument for the understanding of said external world is weak. Descartes brings about the idea of the imagination for the introduction of understanding the external world. With the idea of imagination he pulls forth the idea that the understanding is outside of the mind, to imply that things outside of the body must exist. Descartes clearly expresses this concern when he says “when I inquired into the reason why, from this I know not what sensation of pain, sadness of mind should follow, and why from the sensation of pleasure, joy should arise” (meditation 6, section6).