Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
The problem of evil can be named among the most challenging questions in intellectual history. If it is assumed that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God exists while there is so much evil in this world, it is rational to question the perfect goodness of God. Although theists justify the three O’s, the idea that God tolerates suffering in the world requires a philosopher to admit that He is not all-knowing, not all-powerful, or not good. Any of these three statements can undermine the idea that God exists. This essay will consider that the problem of evil in its moral and natural manifestation is substantial enough to disbelieve in God, by discrediting the three O’s. It will also be argued that the response of theists called the “greater goods defense” is devoid of reasonability.
All evil on earth can be either moral or natural. The former stands for such bad actions as lying, murder, theft, or rape, which presuppose that a person is morally responsible for them. The latter refers to the force-majeure or acts of God when the pain and suffering of living creatures are outside the power of any human being (Lawhead, 2013). Even if it is assumed that moral harm is caused because people are not perfect, natural harm in the form of epidemics, tornados, and earthquakes makes one suppose that God is not perfect. Theodicy tries to justify God’s permitting the presence of both moral and natural evil in human life, but their arguments are contradictive and inconsistent.
The first of the three O’s claims that God is omniscient or all-knowing. If it was so indeed, God would not permit innocent children to suffer, knowing about their present or future pain. Religion presupposes that God knows the future beforehand, but it does not oblige Him to influence it (Hunter, 2019). When He created predators and herbivores, he knew that the former would eat the latter causing much suffering in them. People were created sinful, and God has never changed human nature, so far, to bring them closer to His image.
Such indifference to the outcomes of His creations makes God distant and uninterested in the world’s destiny, contradicting His benevolence. Jesus Christ healed the blind, not having the divine omniscience. Otherwise, his good acts would be considerably more numerous. It could mean that the son is kinder than the Father and that the Father punished him for being too kind to those not deserving it, which is more plausible than making the beloved son suffer for the sins of people whose destiny is of no concern to Him. Thus, such incoherence indicates a lack of love for living creatures, lack of knowledge about the occurrence and intensity of their suffering, as well as lack of mercy in God.
The statement above brings up the issue of the second O, whereby God is omnibenevolent. Our world is so morally objectionable that there is no meaningful reason to see goodness in God who tolerates such a state of things. It is impossible to evaluate God’s benevolence by analyzing his acts and their consequences in every situation worldwide (because nobody knows which events occurred through His will or not). Still, the general image of His character becomes visible through the events described in the Bible as clearly God’s will. Sodom and Gomorrah, the Apocalypse, and even the intended sacrifice of Abharam’s son to make him fear God cannot be considered as actions of an omnibenevolent power. Righteous God punishes people for such sins as lack of faith, pride, and wrath, but people are suggested to turn another cheek if someone hits them. The postulates of the Almighty are illogical, not to mention that they are unfair.
The third of the three O’s asserts that God can do everything that is logically possible. Rejecting this claim allows us to admit that all evil is out of His control. For instance, God would prevent gratuitous natural evil if He could, and if He existed (Peterson, 2016). There is no point in the suffering of animals in extensive forest fires and floods. They do not sin and are unable to believe in God; therefore, redemptive suffering is a senseless measure applied to animals. Meanwhile, with regard to moral evil, omnipotent God could update people after the creation, when He saw their flaws.
Nevertheless, He decides to annihilate the entire population on earth by the Great Flood, hoping that Noah’s children would not repeat the intrinsic sins in human nature. Omnipotent God would rather make people change “as a matter of their own free choice”, provided that He can influence any action and any thought of a human being (Lawhead, 2013, p. 364). A benevolent supernatural power vested with the ability to control any consequence would find a different way to change the next generation, for instance, by making the sinners childless or by changing the human genome, making people unable to feel anger.
One of the common counterarguments of theodicy to the problem of evil is the greater goods defense. Allegedly, God allows certain evil for the sake of a greater good, and people are ignorant of this superior purpose because the entire picture of creation is concealed from them. As Peterson (2016) explains it, “God’s goodness cannot be comprehended by us in terms of a simple formula in this life” (p.308). However, considering that God’s intentions are correct even in the worst evil only because we lack information to substantiate the contrary is irrational. No court would ever justify a criminal because his real intentions were unclear. If God created people not perfect enough to understand the greater good in His actions, He should tolerate their unwillingness to believe in such God. Whenever religion fails to explain a controversy, the believers are suggested to pray and succumb to the dictum that God knows better, which is devoid of common sense.
In view of everything mentioned above, one can conclude that the existence of omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent God does not stand up to logical scrutiny. One of these postulates should be declared invalid, undermining the foundations of Christianity. Theodicy vindicates God’s indifference to natural and moral evil by referring to some greater good beyond human understanding, i.e., the evil done by God is not evil, and His negligence has a reason. However, as Hunter (2019) remarked, it is scientifically useless to employ supernatural explanations to natural phenomena (p. 89), and the real purposes and powers of God will always remain a mystery. Religion comes when logic ends; therefore, only a proven faith can fill in the gap in the reasoning of the problem of evil and the contradictive nature of the three O’s.
References
Lawhead, W. (2013). The philosophical journey: An interactive approach. McGraw-Hill Education.
Peterson, M. L. (Ed.) (2016). The problem of evil: Selected readings (2nd ed.). University of Notre Dame Press.
Hunter, C. G. (2019). Darwin’s God: Evolution and the problem of evil. Wipf & Stock Publishers.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.