With the presence of omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God, the claim on evil is absurd. Even though it has been difficult to have satisfactory answers to this question, there is no way God will allow nature of evil to take its course. In the first portion of this essay, I will address the reasons given on the evil situation by the external world, and the second section, I will provide the philosophical arguments put forward in justification of the problem on evil. Nonetheless, this paper will build on the freewill response and conclude that the issue seen with evil is not sufficient to prove that there is no Deity, or God.
For a real number of years, the atheists used the question of evil to contend about the presence of God. Throughout their opinion, the very same Deity is ubiquitous, pervasive, and transcendent, which means that without any limits, he is capable of holding on to absolute powers, wisdom, and perfection. Thus, they believe that if God does exist, it is not reasonable to have misery and suffering in the universe that he claims to have made. On the other hand, if God truly existed, and all-knowing as well as all-good. Why doesn’t He do anything to deter or make sure suffering thwarted in the universe? Consequently, as evil exists, it claims that God is not real.
Philosophical theories have replied to the question of evil, and one of them claims that the issue of sin is not adequately proved that God does not exist as evil is an object of higher intent created by the very same God (Hancock and Sweetman, 1998, pg. 63). Hancock retains this view in his articles regarding Truth and Religious Belief. Hancock believes that while evil is in the universe, it is balanced by a greater sense of good. An instance of a war starting and leading to victory is an illustration that the author gives on his claim about evil and God’s life.
Through all of this, the author argues clearly why God should give evil space and why God should use suffering to build a better future, accomplish it, and ensure development. As said by Hancock, the explanation for evil is God, and excuses it. Nevertheless, there is a positive approach that is useful in making sure that we recognize the non-free evil that is considered wrong. Lit can only be substituted with something better now that the connection between the misery factor and the compensation effect is obvious. For example, for me to guarantee that I compose a concise and practical article, I have to make sure that I collect information from the comprehension classwork and evaluate information that will eventually be put together to generate arguments and evidence to react to the task. Although I recognize challenges along the way, this work should give me a clearer understanding of the resources provided for the course at the end of it. When I work through the period of my school years, though, in the face of the gratuitous bad, I must earn my degree along the way; the more significant point that is good is pit to test.
However, the more significant good statement receives repossesses from the anti-theist that if the bad brings greater good, how is the gratuitous bad handled, this is so evil in the context that it does not yield any good (Swinburne, 2010, pg. 4). Which good thing would come out of a disaster that sweeps out the whole area, killing a substantial number of people? Which happens with sexual violence and political deaths? These are instances of gratuitous evil. Presuming that a portion of all those who passed away is a scientist who developed weapons of mass destruction and if left to live, the devastation he would have caused will suffice to kill a large number of people with a push of a button. That kind of situation is cut and dry, but it demonstrates how a real evil can come out of a nightmare evil as a relief.
In these situations, where there is a range of problems, it is therefore difficult for humans to make the correct decision. Consequently, it is also not possible to argue the correctly about what will happen in case of a legendary bad. The protection of free will is utilized to complain against the bad as it claims that God has guaranteed that a free will was given to all people to make choices about what they want to do. We have demonstrated how free will outweighs the awful human beings do. It is through these events that the gratuitous evil is clarified while it does not threaten God’s life. In other words, this gracious evil is allowed by God in exchange with free will.
When God created man, God’s primary objective was a reciprocal relationship. Without the free will that would have meant that in the relation- God is not genuine because human beings may appear as puppets governed by God alone. Therefore, free will was the deliberate decision of God to allow human beings to make their own choices. This kind of freedom gives human powers what they want their life to be without any external influence. I agree that there are evils that commit out of free will. The price of crime committed is carried by humans and can be compensated through the will of God.
There cannot be evil without God. This argument, however, does not mean that God planned the crime in the world he created, but it shows that the concept of evil is pro-human and wrong if there is no good to compare it. Swinburne, in his book ‘Is there a God’ emphasized that one of the essential premises of evil is that evil exists (Swinburne, 2010, pg. 3–19). Those who support the problem of evil have witnessed evil; they have recognized something as evil or claim to be part of knowing that sin is wrong. Anybody that can compare good and bad acknowledges the existence of God, who is the opposite of the crime. The argument, therefore, from the atheist society is wrong as they now some good that is associated with God. As soon as one claims that God doesn’t exist, they cannot continue to claim that there is good because that is God.
Hancock, in his book truth and religious belief, argues that a relatively good act is always related to God and that people will have a thought and conscious mind that helps them separate good from evil with a clear, distinct line (Hancock and Sweetman, 1998, pg. 63). Those who believe in the absence of God cannot have a different line drawn between good and evil because they cannot equate the good to anything else. This distinct division of right and harm confirms that the bad is already defeated because the world comprises of better than evil and that evil is considered misfortunes that beset human but are always regulated or prevented by a powerful
If God were not present, the existing society would see the likelihood of a lost planet. The kind of evils that exist is capable of putting an end to the world in which we live, a purpose which makes me believe that there is a god. This world, according to Christianity, is not the way God planned a healthy and ideal place to call home, but he keeps coming in to cleanse it and defend us from evil. Jesus ended up living a clean life, setting an example to replicate ostracizing evil and protecting other human beings the same way we would be doing for ourselves. It is a pledge in the long-term Holy scriptures where evil is ultimately defeated by linking back to the existence of a loving God who does not want evil.
So, I am against the claim that evil is justification enough to show that God does not exist. Jackson in the God of philosophy claims that God and evil coexist; it is that God only will use the question of evil to ensure that human beings have doubts that could result in a better society (Jackson, 2014).