In most instances, evil results into catastrophic outcomes where a significant number of people suffer. This paper is mainly concerned on the issue of the existence of a Deity as well as the significance of such an existence. To evaluate the subject, the paper assesses the concept of nature and the environment as well as how the two manifest the existence of a Deity. This will facilitate the assessment of the problem of evil, how the evil afflicts people, and how to rid the society of such problems. Problems emanating from evil have made a significant number of members of the society to suffer, especially those who appear to have forsaken their faith. Such problems lead people to wonder whether God is a loving Deity who is also kind, and why should the world suffer so many afflictions as a result of evil as well as the problems that result from evil. This paper evaluates different arguments by various philosophers in relation to the obstacle of evil and the decision that individuals ought to make and abide with so as to rid them of evil.
The problems as well as the challenges that result from evil were first addressed by the Greek philosophers during 3rd century. Up to now, a significant number of theologians and philosophers have combated the problem causing some philosophers argue the non- existence of God, an argument that some regard as a colossal joke. Though a significant number of theologians maintain that God is still omnipotent, loving, and kind as he was during the time of early Christians, this argument is becoming less convincing with time. Some philosophers argue that for Supreme Being to create the universe and other related good deeds, He must have been a perfect (omnibenevolence), and such a perfection would not have lead Him into creating things that human beings consider to be oppressive and challenging. In fact, there are those individuals who criticize the creator for making nature to appear to be like a ruler over humanity, instead of humanity ruling over nature.
The challenge of evil is usually a moral protest that makes people to lament as to why the Supreme God allows things to happen the way that they do. People have often claimed that God must be unfair to let challenges beyond the control of humanity afflict the world as the world ought to have been the dominion of humanity. Such views and arguments allow atheists to step in with an aim to alter the whole idea of challenges and sufferings. They argue that no good Lord would command natural disasters, such as earthquakes, into killing hundreds of people, or allow people to suffer from diseases with no cure. The atheists appear to be convincing, especially when they argue that tragic accidents cannot occur where God exists. Some people also argue this development on the basis of morality where they suggest that since God appear not to be willing to control these challenges and suffering, He is not a straight Deity.
Evil obstructs and challenges humanity. Atheists disagree with theologians as they attempt to evaluate the subject of evil as they find the values that theologians attach to God as unconvincing and cannot, therefore, define the problem of evil conclusively. They reject the omniscience and omnipotence of a Deity or a Supreme Hand, arguing that had it existed, it would not, therefore, allow humanity to suffer the challenges that it suffers. In essence, atheists do not agree with the three main qualities that theologians attach to the Supreme Deity including omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing/infinitely wise), and omnibenovelent (being good). They also doubt that the evil truly exists.
Disagreements between theologians and the atheists have perceived since, as stated earlier, the atheists put humanity into task by asking; if He is omnipotent, why are there sufferings to human kind? Why can’t God combat all the suffering and evil that happen to humanity since he is all powerful? If He is Omniscient He would recognize all the suffering and evil, and would recognize and identify how to prevent or combat it. With regard to this, why does he opt to remain indifferent? If He is perfectly good, he would be there to prevent and discourage all the suffering and evil, and the staggering amount of suffering and evil everywhere that is evident everywhere would be easily dealt with. If suffering and evil do prevail, this is, therefore, a clear indicator that God could not be omnipotent, omnibenovelent, or omniscient as it is claimed by the theologians. Otherwise, he would appear to be ignorant, impotent, and wicked; and these traits are all that we do not expect the Supreme Deity to be. Although theologians argue that the Supreme Being is a loving and a kind one, many critics argue that he is unable to demonstrate the level of superiority that would, indeed, bring suffering and evil into an end.
While the traits that the theologians attack to the Supreme Deity appear to make sense in some instances, there are times when the logic behind them appears to be inconsistent with the reality in the world. Individuals perceive a lot of impossibilities and, as such, the Deity that theologians talk about appears to differ with the one who reign over the world. So long as there are no disagreements on the conjunctions, it has become increasingly difficult to rely on that Deity with optimal trust and faith. This arguments hence shows that it is not indeterminate for evil and God to synchronize.
Problem of Evil
If it is certain that Supreme Being has sufficient virtually reason to allow suffering and evil to occur, then the challenge of evil is an inadequate determination of whether God really exists. However, if it isn’t possible that Supreme Being has a virtually sufficient reason for commissioning evil, then it shows that God is not perfectly good, not omniscient nor omnipotent. The assumption is that, it is not acceptable for Supreme Being to allow suffering and evil to occur, unless he has an appropriate reason in doing that. Problems of suffering and evil hence lower the existence of Supreme Being. Problems of evil are that; God originated evil, so that one may extract between evil and good and make honestly choices. If all alternatives were good, then one would not have chosen honesty choices. If love is pleasant, it’s fundamentally be extracted over hate, hence suffering and evil results when one makes honesty insignificant choices.
Evil is also seen as repercussion of disrespecting God; this is because it was originated by God, but since the repercussions of disrespecting Gods divine foundation. The two considerations of this argument are; the innocents are the victim of the catastrophic evil; the dishonest people are escaping earthly consequence. If the controversy was true, children, infant and other righteous people would not be at a disadvantage, thieves, murders and other evil people would not be able to live well-fixed lives. Evil is also allowed by God so that good deeds are acknowledged. This argument states that, the Supreme Being wants to be appreciated that he commissions many evils to mankind, so as for mankind to acknowledge the good at higher chances.
The Supreme Being does well while Satan performs evil deeds, God is limited in seeing the future, and this is why He didn’t know if Satan will turn against him, this is because he didn’t know the future. The Satan devil blindsided the Supreme Being who is limited in knowing about the future, hence Satan created evil by himself. God felt like he was betrayed making Satan the root cause of evil. If the Supreme Being is all perfectly good, then he would have destroyed Satan and extract the good from the evil and then do away with evil.
Free Will doesn’t Solicit the Existence of Evil
Since Heaven is perceived to be free of suffering, it is thought to be a place where free will reigns. This shows that suffering and evil are not the key prerequisites of free will as even with the provision of having the free will in Heaven, there is no evil and suffering. Nevertheless, critics continue to question why God could not consider relocating humanity to Heaven, so that He can free them from suffering. Geological disasters such volcanoes, earthquakes, diseases and floods are not free will. They are natural evils that affect mankind indiscriminately. Unborn children, humans and animals suffer as a result of these natural evil. These catastrophes have been on earth in history and are not as human mechanism, they destroy both physical and architectural design making no mankind to be a perfect god.
Supreme Being, not only originated the probability of sin, pain and suffering, but it materialize that these suffering and pain makes one with a strong predisposition towards it. Life being dishonest is an evidence of suffering and pain, feelings, inadequacy, and evil emotions such as greed. The Supreme Being originated these emotions, one does not choose to get these emotions, and they are integrated in our individuality. God could integrate man kind in a way that one doesn’t get enclosed with these feelings of suffering and pain; these could have terminated evil resulting into a free will world. Fact that the Supreme Being has originated our individuality and sentiment to be accessorized into sin and weakness means that he requires us to extract evil and good. He created the evil and mankind, and its most probably one might choose evil over good.
Free will is not a requirement for suffering. When one commits a violation, brings suffering to the victim. The victim has not choose to suffer and have pain but it’s through the person who was committed the crime has choose to do so. God himself should put out there a crime which is right to make the innocent ones avoid the trap. If evil pain and suffering are the main outcomes from free will, then why do outside mechanisms cause much suffering? Punishing an innocent person to other person’s victim is an undesirable free will. In a society with no crimes and sufferings, with no victims, punishment is expendable. If our individuality was regulated towards good, punishment would be a need as form of crime reduction. The punishment is a significant that the Supreme Being is not all- powerful.
Free will is the capability to synthesize choices; it means that we must comprehend different options. Nevertheless it’s grotesque to emphasize that if one doesn’t choose evil then he doesn’t have free will. Life has million ways where one can choose, but there is no point in life one chooses ‘evil’ way to be significance. Free will still exists without it. When one chooses, Supreme Being can rectify the moral course of it, and enable the inflictor acknowledge its effects. There is no point of evil to materialize outside individual’s own choices. This shows that evil can be picked and not acknowledged. There isn’t an apprehension for evil to suffering. This shows that one could have temperament that doesn’t will wrongdoing, yet still comprehend free will. If one had an alternative between evil deeds and good deeds, if one chose evil deeds, why should it induce suffering? Why is necessary it? One could have chosen evil, and of it to cause no implications, than to prohibit a person to sensibility which it did well. That is satisfactory of free will. A forgiving Supreme Being would observe that one just choose unfortunately bad deeds and rectify one mistake and forgive. This would not have resulted no suffering. This would mean that the ones that the ones that may badly need to go to in Heaven, then it should be like that, but it doesn’t make any point for actual pain and sufferings to occur.
Presently, philosophers have not exhausted on points how the Supreme Being originates evil; this means that the existence of perfect god is incompatible with bad deeds and evil. Philosophers and atheists have not got a new reason on why to problems of evil in these past thousand years. Failure in answering and attempting the questions on why evil is still happening continue to test theists’ state of mind.