The problem of evil simply stated is the major argument against mono-theism. Having defined this God as being omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and just; we can conclude that God is aware of evil and he also has the power to stop it, but he does not. Therefore, God does not exist. This argument has riddled philosophers for centuries and many different explanations have arisen from it. Some theologians have suggested that God is unable to stop evil, but many people disregard this explanation. Other have stated that it is impossible to give humans free will without the opportunity to choose evil. The word is evil is some what difficult to define and differs from culture to culture. Some religions believe that evil is merely a product of the mind, and does not really exist; however, the opposing cultures do acknowledge evil’s presence in the world, and have reduced the results to two types of evil, moral and natural. Natural evils have been claimed to be caused by the devil and his minions, while others claim it is a necessary natural process. Social evil can be attributed to human’s freewill and it exist due to the choices we make. This essay will examine these premises and claims, and will thoroughly explain the atheistic and theistic views on this topic ultimately concluding that the existence of evil proves that God, as he has been defined, is not a possibility.

The Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religions define God as being omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent while displaying righteous ethical beliefs. Thomas makes a worthy note on this case by stating, “these qualities of God were concocted by humans, and have no examples in the real world, much like the capabilities of Superman.” (Thomas). Having clearly defined what God is in terms of human understanding, theists safely conclude that God created all that exists. However, as many philosophers throughout the centuries have argued, he is ultimately responsible for evil as well.

Being all-knowing and all-powerful, he or she knew that there would be suffering and pain before it was, but they chose to give man free will and has knowingly allowed evil to exist. Since he is benevolent, unlike all other gods, he would certainly put an end to evil., but as we are all aware, he has not. Such philosophers as John Cobb and William James claim that God is not omnipotent in an attempt to clarify why he can not stop evil, but for most people this explanation clearly makes God nothing more than another powerless being, which mono-theistic religions clearly claim he is not (Pojman 201).

Secondly, when theist speak of being omnipotent, they are suggesting that God is capable of doing anything that is logical. God cannot make 2+2=5 nor can he make a square circle. This interpretation is very important in defending their views against the

existence of evil. Considering that God is what mono-theistic religion defines him as and the inevitable knowledge that evil exist in the world, or at least unnecessary evil, the only way to clarify this paradox is to understand the definition of evil.

The Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines evil as that which brings sorrow, distress or calamity through the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing (433). Hindus believe that pain and evil are only an illusion, but for many of us they do exist, and can not be denied. To enhance our understanding of evil, Western society has simplified it into two categories: moral and natural evil.

Moral evil is defined as all those bad things for which humans are morally responsible. The major theistic defense against evil is the argument for free will. Great men such as St. Augustine and Richard Swinburne argue that it is impossible for God to create free creatures without there being evil. To understand the theist perspective of why God chose this, imagine that out of all the possible worlds suitable for life, giving humans free will with the proper balance of good and evil was far greater than creating a world with more sin or a world without free will (Pojman 202).

Free will undoubtedly introduces a huge twist in the argument for God. Despite the controversy of Hard Determinism and the like, theist define free will as being “free to choose between good and evil acts.” (Pojman 202). That is to say, no actions are caused but they can be influenced, be it by the devil or personal desires.

The bible strongly suggests throughout the scriptures that humans are in higher favor in God’s world and are the only species with a soul. This means that although your body itself is made up of billions of cells each with its own will and function, something as small as a virus does not deserve the same opportunity to survive as humans do. The virus, despite it being a living organism with a purpose in God’s plan, should be destroyed without question. If the virus is not conquered, it will surely bring about a result that is unfavorable for the human, which is in a sense evil because it defies God’s (allegedly) will of human dominance.

To give an example of moral evil, consider these two things. Call upon the last vehicle that cut you off in rush hour. You probably felt as if the driver had done

wrong to you and their actions were in some sense evil. Cussing, blowing your horn,

mumbling under your breath, and yes, even entertaining thoughts of judgment on another person’s actions are all suggestions of that person doing an evil act in your perception of the events. Now, recall the last time you were in rush hour traffic, and you “accidentally” pulled in front of another vehicle almost causing a collision. Certainly you may feel bad about what you did, but chances are you were too busy to even notice that you cut someone off. No doubt those involved in your decision did not share the same benefits you received from your action, so in a sense you have done wrong to them and are evil.

Things can be even more complicated by considering the war in Iraq. It serves as a perfect example of moral evil insofar as it is being fought by two opposing beliefs. These terrorist, as they have been labeled, simply cannot accept through any rational means that what they are doing is wrong. They truly believe that the will of God is to exterminate non-believers. But this folly extends to both side, as both are claiming to be doing what is right, and both use the same methods of persuasion. Murder is justified through religion on the basis of a non-theological theory, kill or be killed, or rather Darwin’s survival of the fittest. But these fanatics fail to realize that they have abandoned the notion of God’s will for their own desires, and are thus unable to understand the evil they are doing (Wortman 12).

Natural evil is rationalized by theists in two ways. The first is the notion that natural evil is the work of the devil and his angels. Such things like the virus example and natural disasters including tornadoes and hurricanes are caused by the devil’s will. The second, and more readily accepted, argues that evil is part of the orderly process of nature. The laws of nature are only good and bad insofar as the perceiver accepts them. The same rain that causes a farmer’s land to bear great harvest may too be the cause of another farmer’s ruined crops. Swinburne makes it clear that although there are limits to the amount of evil God will allow, he cannot intervene without eroding human responsibility or the balance of natural law (Pojman 203).

To further understand the problem of evil, we must decide whether God is immanent or transcendental. The bible clearly suggests that God is very immanent where

by he created the world, cast Adam and Eve out the garden of evil, allowed the torment of Job, flooded the world, and sent his own son to die for our sins. Alone these may be picked apart, but together they clearly state that God intervenes in the physical world.

However, looking at sources that have not been discounted as fiction, it is clear that God as we know him is nothing more than an illusion and does not contribute to any of the causes in our lives. Thomas gives a great example by dropping a penny to the floor. We know through science that gravity is responsible for the penny falling. Now suppose we get all three of our major mono-theistic groups to pray to God asking him to prevent the next penny from falling, the penny would still fall to the floor. Empirical Science opened the doors for disproving the myths of miracles and such by showing that even though magicians can be deceiving, there is still a logical reason for what really happens, and God does not intermingle in the affairs of the world (Thomas).

It should also be noted that many theist believe we suffer to understand God. By allowing some evil in the world, God ultimately does more good than bad. Peter van Inwagen portrayed a beautiful example of how things must be looked at on an infinite scale. He writes:

“Imagine that Atlantis is sinking and that 1,000 people will drown if they are not rescued by ship. If the captain of the ship puts none on board he is certain to reach port safely; if he puts all 1,000 people on board, the ship will definitely sink and all will drown. For each person he puts on board, the likelihood of the ship’s sinking is increased by 0.1%. The captain must put at least a handful on board and not take aboard all but a handful. In between those extremes, everything is permitted. It is not wrong for him to take 100 aboard when he could have taken 125, even thought taking 100 means at least 25 will needlessly drown on Atlantis.” (Pojman 208).

He believes that by meeting the guideline of positive over negative, God is granted the right to allow the suffering that happens in the world simply because in the sense of eternity, all is good. In the big scheme of things, theists most importantly try to look at things in the perspective of eternity. The things that we consider hardships today

are merely preparations for that which is to come, whether it be in heaven or on earth, possibly through reincarnation. Because certain deeds go seemingly unpunished, it is easy to find comfort in believing that some one, some where is watching and is making judgments about our actions in respects to eternity. It creates a sense of satisfaction and release from judgment. However, we must bear in mind that we manifest our own characteristics of this God, as well as poly-theistic gods, and attempt to rationalize the reasons of another being. Knowledge is the difference between what is right and what is wrong. Through knowledge we are enlightened on what is true and what is false, and when something is true, we can firmly make the right moral choice, and discard the notion that someone’s differing opinion or choice are evil.

As Composed by Jeremy Marston

Intro To Philosophy

10/6/05

Boyd, Gregory. Is God to Blame? Beyond Pat Answers to the Problem of Suffering. Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Gaughan, Nancy. Why God Lets People Suffer. Carlsbad, CA: Magnus Press, 2000.

Rhodes, Ron. Why Do Bad Things Happen If God Is Good? Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2004.

Pojman, Louis. Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Thomas, Mark. Why Atheism. Godless Geeks. July 6, 2004. November 6, 2004.