Can Evil Exist with an Omnipotent God?
Is the existence of evil compatible with the existence of an omnipotent god with the ability to desire to eliminate evil? That seems unlikely and many atheological arguments have been based upon just that. A solid argument makes the existence of the traditional God unlikely at best - and belief in it unreasonable.
Here is a formal statement of the contradiction between omnipotence and the existence of evil:
1,God is omnipotent. (premise)
2,God is perfectly good. (premise)
3,A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can. (premise)
4,There is no limit to what an omnipotent being can do. (premise)
5,An omnipotent being can eliminate evil completely. (from 4)
6,A good omnipotent thing will eliminate evil completely. (from 3 - 5)
7,The existence of a good omnipotent being is inconsistent with the existence of evil. (from 6)
Therefore, the existence of God is inconsistent with the existence of evil. (from 7 - 9).
Premises #1 and #2 express commonly cited attributes of God as worshipped in traditional monotheistic religions, so they seem pretty secure. If they are challenged, it would only be in order to construct a radically different concept of God which would have to be addressed separately.
Premise #3 seems unassailable. Although one might dispute exactly how far a being can eliminate evil, there is little reason to think that a being would refrain from eliminating as much evil as possible and still be “good” in any coherent sense. If we were confronted with a human being who didn’t bother to stop evil even though it was well within their power to do so, it would be difficult for us to describe them as a “good” person.
The strength of premise #4 turns on how one defines “omnipotence.” Does it include the ability to eliminate evil or is there some logical impediment? Some theists will rationalize away the concept of omnipotence until it doesn’t accomplish much beyond what is “logically possible” and “what is consistent with God’s nature,” thus rendering God not much more “omnipotent” than a person is. If this line of argument isn’t followed, then it would be difficult to argue that eliminating evil is outside the power of God, creator of the universe.
Statements #5 and #6 are actually quite strong — most theists will agree that #5 is true but argue that God has some very good reason for not completely eliminate evil. Some say that evil exists because of free will, others say that evil exists so that we can acquire important virtues. Such arguments and known as theodicies and do not question the logical structure of the argument above; instead, they purport to explain why #6 is not true in the case of their god even though #5 is (and, by extension, #3 and #4).
This argument demonstrates that it isn’t enough to simply say that omnipotence and the existence of evil are contradictions. We need to include a number of additional premises: that good and evil are opposed to each other, that good eliminates evil whenever possible, and that omnipotence doesn’t allow for any limits.
thank you austin
Is the existence of evil compatible with the existence of an omnipotent god with the ability to desire to eliminate evil? That seems unlikely and many atheological arguments have been based upon just that. A solid argument makes the existence of the traditional God unlikely at best - and belief in it unreasonable.
Here is a formal statement of the contradiction between omnipotence and the existence of evil:
1,God is omnipotent. (premise)
2,God is perfectly good. (premise)
3,A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can. (premise)
4,There is no limit to what an omnipotent being can do. (premise)
5,An omnipotent being can eliminate evil completely. (from 4)
6,A good omnipotent thing will eliminate evil completely. (from 3 - 5)
7,The existence of a good omnipotent being is inconsistent with the existence of evil. (from 6)
Therefore, the existence of God is inconsistent with the existence of evil. (from 7 - 9).
Premises #1 and #2 express commonly cited attributes of God as worshipped in traditional monotheistic religions, so they seem pretty secure. If they are challenged, it would only be in order to construct a radically different concept of God which would have to be addressed separately.
Premise #3 seems unassailable. Although one might dispute exactly how far a being can eliminate evil, there is little reason to think that a being would refrain from eliminating as much evil as possible and still be “good” in any coherent sense. If we were confronted with a human being who didn’t bother to stop evil even though it was well within their power to do so, it would be difficult for us to describe them as a “good” person.
The strength of premise #4 turns on how one defines “omnipotence.” Does it include the ability to eliminate evil or is there some logical impediment? Some theists will rationalize away the concept of omnipotence until it doesn’t accomplish much beyond what is “logically possible” and “what is consistent with God’s nature,” thus rendering God not much more “omnipotent” than a person is. If this line of argument isn’t followed, then it would be difficult to argue that eliminating evil is outside the power of God, creator of the universe.
Statements #5 and #6 are actually quite strong — most theists will agree that #5 is true but argue that God has some very good reason for not completely eliminate evil. Some say that evil exists because of free will, others say that evil exists so that we can acquire important virtues. Such arguments and known as theodicies and do not question the logical structure of the argument above; instead, they purport to explain why #6 is not true in the case of their god even though #5 is (and, by extension, #3 and #4).
This argument demonstrates that it isn’t enough to simply say that omnipotence and the existence of evil are contradictions. We need to include a number of additional premises: that good and evil are opposed to each other, that good eliminates evil whenever possible, and that omnipotence doesn’t allow for any limits.
thank you austin
