The Argument between Good and Evil

THE ARGUMENT BETWEEN EVIL AND EVIL

The argument for the existence of God is one that has been ongoing and developing over the course of time. Several arguments have sprung advocating for each side, in some cases one side more than the other. Perhaps one of the strongest arguments against the existence of  “God” is the Problem of Evil. Many philosophers have contributed to it over time, but in general it holds that God can not exist because an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscience God would not allow many of the evils to occur as they do in the present world. Philosopher David Hume once said “Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” He is simply asking how an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing God can exist, and not rid reality of all evil, both natural and humanistic? It does not follow logical foundations so the problem of evil has become a prominent philosophical and religious argument. With the problem of evil come those evils considered to be the most destructive and immoral.

An example of a problem of evil argument goes as such: Rape is a serious crime that is inherently evil and vicious. This can be taken as an axiom due to the agreement within society. An omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient God would be compelled to rid the world of inherent evils. Rape is still prevalent and occurring, therefore God, in this sense, cannot exist. This argument is seemingly plausible in its foundations, and stays solid through the necessitated conclusion. Of course rape is not the only evil which can shine a positive light on the problem of evil, there are many. For example, non-provoked murder, genocide, severe disease diagnosis, and molestation are all examples of extremely detestable and evil acts that occur in the world. There are, on the other hand arguments that attempt to explain how evil and God can exist simultaneously. These responses are called Theodicies, and vary almost as much as evil acts themselves.

  These theodicies give possible reasons to explain why “God,” as described earlier, would and could allow evil to take place. They often have moral lessons attached to them, and other similar reasoning. There are many theodicies throughout the world, but for the purpose of this educational exercise five will be chosen to possibly explain the evil acts mentioned above.

Theodicies:

The first theodicy that will be discussed and applied is that known as the Punishment of Sin Theodicy. This theodicy holds that God can exist and allow certain evils to happen as punishment for sin. It is because of this punishment that sin will not occur as prevalent in reality. Once can use this theodicy to explain how God could allow disease to happen. For this example, the specific case of Sexually Transmitted Diseases will be used. It is known that premarital sex is outlawed by many religious deities, and so to indulge in it is wrong. One can say that Person X engages in premarital sex with Person Y, and what results is that Person X catches an STD. The question that stands is that If God is all good, has unlimited power, and knows that Person was going to contract an STD, why was did he not stop the contraction? The theodicy in response would be that God punished Person X for his fornication, by allowing him to contract an STD.

The second theodicy that will be discussed is the Need for Natural Law theodicy. This theodicy holds that natural evils are required in order to maintain the uniformity of nature within our physical world. For example, disease can be taken as an issue that can be answered with this specific theodicy. Hypothetically speaking, Person X is camping during the winter, and a loud noise triggers an avalanche and he dies under the snow. Many would ask how God could allow this, but this theodicy delivers a plausible explanation. Within reality there are certain rules that govern how objects in reality interact. Certain evils have to occur in order for this uniformity to remain fluent

 The third theodicy that will be discussed is the Free Will theodicy. This theodicy says that evil happens as a result of free will disobedience. The argument that goes against God would read like this: Based on this theodicy, evil is the one agent that really shapes and molds peoples' characters. For instance, God created man and endowed man with free-will. Free will is the cause of moral evil. If God creates and allows natural evil God is evil. For example: if a man were trapped inside a cave after an avalanche and a team equipped with all the supplies and gear to save him, decided to leave the man to his frigid death, that is the free-will that allows us to make decisions on moral evils. The holocaust would be an example of a man and a group of oppressors had the free will to go and commit terrible murders upon a race simply because of its ethnicity. Evils exist in light of the creator's decision to allow the free will. The only good that could come from such an example in this theodicy is that the world now had an example of what not to do. It set the standard for wrongdoing. However, this good does not outweigh the painful measures that others had to go through. 

The above theodicy leads us to explain the fourth theodicy and that is the Contrast Theodicy. This theodicy holds that we wouldn't know good unless we knew evil. We would have nothing to base our norms off of to know what was acceptable behavior and to know what wasn't acceptable behavior. For example, if no one had ever committed an act of terrorism before 9/11, no one would have known or even thought of those terrorist attacks as being something negative. The good that lead from that instance and that shapes this theodicy is most likely our awareness evil and how we govern ourselves after we encounter such evils. Our level of security rises and it brings about a heightened effort to make sure that we protect ourselves. There can then be the argument that an all-powerful all-good God wouldn't use evil to make good. One could denote that God didn't use evil when creating the Earth which is all good so God must not be all powerful and all good if he allows these events to happen just so we can learn a lesson. 

As for the last theodicy, we will discuss the Soul-Making theodicy. This theodicy holds that some evils promote character growth. It states that the good that comes out of the evils can help to shape better moral character. In the example of a baby being born with cancer the parents are challenged to grow. There strength must be evident in light of their baby's situation that occurred from birth. They might even create a foundation that helps other kids dealing with the same cancer. Their overall ambition for life would change to being more compassionate and caring for others in sad situations. On the other hand, the baby that is born dead may cause little to no spiritual or natural maturity. If anything it would cause the greatest discouragement of life and a questioning as to how an all good all powerful God could let something like that happen. 

THE ARGUMENT GOES ON....

The argument of evil is one that will last for the ages. Theodicies that shape the way we look at God and at life ultimately show us what we believe. While there is some evil in the world, there is also some good. Sometimes the good outweighs the bad, and other times the bad outweighs the good. Either way, both exist and they will continue to exist as long as there breathing persons on this Earth. The evils that may shape us can also break us. However, whenever there is something to be constructed on this Earth and in our lives, before there must be some destruction. 

dudley.geoffrey2@gmail.com, marquestharris@gmail.com, Mccants.jeremy@yahoo.com