God’s Existence: Argument Against
Whether the omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent God exists in light of evil in the world has persisted as contentious. To some, the idea that such a God is logically incompatible with the world is enough to conclude that such a God does not exist. If such a God did exist, he would eliminate evil, which lends credence to this argument. This is recognized as a good problem of evil. Those who believe in God point to the existence of the “evidential problem of evil,” which is abundant scientific evidence of evil (Lawhead 24). God’s existence can be explained only by the assumption that the greater good permits some evil while simultaneously reducing the evil and suffering in the world. However, they argue that there is no evidence of such a greater good or a supernatural being with such a character, so God does not exist.
One could also argue that one should make the fewest possible assumptions when determining whether evil and God exist. This is because the hypothesis that powers exist beyond human comprehension is disproved by the premise that some evidence must be available for something to exist. This occurs when bad things are thought to happen independently, but no one knows why.
There is both moral evil and natural evil, each of which has its distinct characteristics. When people act immorally or choose to do nothing, bad things happen. One example of moral evil is murder, caused by human action. For example, suppose a person’s actions as the instigator of a poisoning result in the victim’s death rather than the poison’s effects on the body. In that case, the instigator can be held liable under the proximate cause doctrine. When people starve to death because their governments are unwilling to provide emergency food aid, the moral evil is apparent: the officials hoarding the help are to blame, not the famine itself.
However, natural evil does not stem from human actions. Nothing can usually be done to stop it because it is beyond human control. One such scenario is a person’s slow and excruciating death from an incurable disease like cancer. The argument for the existence of evil must be internally consistent, and so must any theodicy that seeks to explain it. Individuals making decisions based on their desires create a morally corrupt world. However, natural sin exemplifies nature’s superiority over human control. Those who engage in moral evil will face God’s wrath, while those who alleviate the suffering of others will receive God’s blessings.
According to theorists, natural and moral evil do not disprove God’s existence. It is argued that God’s gift of free will to humans inevitably leads to moral evil. Then it is up to man to put his free will to work and either increase or decrease evil in the world. Undoubtedly, those individuals who deliberately try to murder others fall into this category. People like police officers and medical professionals work daily to prevent needless deaths and alleviate the suffering of those who already have them.
On the other hand, the handsome contend that God allows evil because He intends it for our ultimate good. Proponents of this view argue that God uses natural evil to bring out the best in people. In the aftermath of a devastating event like an earthquake or hurricane, communities often band together to help those in need. However, the issue is not that there is no good in the world but that suffering is due to such an occurrence. In light of this, the question of whether or not human beings must experience evil for there to be good, assuming God exists, becomes a point of contention. Some might see this as a poor justification and use it to argue against the existence of God. As a result, no convincing argument can be made for God’s existence, much less for the validity of religious faith, without directly attacking God.
The objector has made what the dilemma involving God’s endless goodness is. God’s perfect goodness would rule out the possibility of evil. Many have expanded on this line by arguing that God cannot be infinitely wise, good, or powerful if evil exists, making this a tri-lemma. No matter how good his intentions are, he either has no control over evil or no idea how to stop it.
St. Thomas does not say it out loud, but what is implicit in what he does, is that evil, when framed correctly, provides an argument for God. St. Augustine says, “Since God acts as the highest good, He cannot allow evil to happen in His work unless His goodness and power were such as to create good out of evil” (54). The existence of evil is impossible on a metaphysical level. This does not reject the existence of evil or the suffering it causes, but it does point out that suffering is not caused by evil itself but by the absence of good. For this reason, blindness is a terrible condition because it robs people of the benefit of sight. Sins and vices are examples of moral evil because they stem from a deficiency of the moral good that should reside in and emanate from every person.
This distinction is significant for two reasons Despite its familiarity. First, it disproves the validity of dualistic ontological justifications. Secondly, and more to the point, good always arises from evil through a process of creation ex nihilo. Everything good occurs as a result of nothing. Only an all-powerful being can create something from nothing, so the problem of evil poses no challenge to the principle of God’s omnipotence. One who allows evil and suffering but ultimately brings good from it is more potent than one who merely puts up a divine Stop Sign to prevent evil from happening in the first place.
God’s perfect goodness is not challenged by evil or suffering. Especially when one factor in the idea that God permits evil only when necessary to bring about some greater good. Only in a world where evil and suffering are real can goods like self-sacrifice exist. God’s goodness is more clearly displayed in a world where evil and suffering exist than in a world without them.
Each of the arguments purporting to “prove” God’s existence rests on three assumptions that appear to be the product of painstakingly elaborated reasoning. However, in reality, thousands of years of discussion have led nowhere, and by far, being drowned in its contents has not given satisfactory results in terms of the likelihood of verifying God’s existence, so God remains a matter of faith, not of rational verification, or object of true knowledge.
Work Cited
Lawhead, William. The Philosophical Journey: An Interactive Approach. Available from: VitalSource Bookshelf, (7th Edition). McGraw-Hill Higher Education (US), 2018.