Introduction
Throughout the historical background of humankind, numerous scholars, researchers, and theologians have pondered the idea of evil, the presence of God, and even if God exists, whether He posses supreme and illustrative powers of unending goodness. After the first individual looked up to the sky and mulled over the origination of natural occurrences or the reasons why unpleasant things occur to good individuals, mankind has gotten affianced in a constant discussion over problem of evil and its connection to God's presence and whether He epitomizes unfathomable worthiness or tempered retaliation (Ryan). Various researchers and logicians have contended that the vicinity and issue of evil in the common world presents a rational premise to conclude that it does not sound important to encourage that a being of countless goodness is at the foundation of their cause (Mackie). Others argue that the problem of evil in our world would not exhibit an issue or ignore the thought or idea of an Omni-benevolent or God being its source.
Discussion
Epicurus- the ancient Greek thinker and philosopher is often accredited as being the first to evaluate the issue of evil in association to a faith in the presence of an Omni-altruistic, omniscient and omnipotent being and the complete contradiction that falls out between the two ideas (Mackie, 1955). As per the problem of evil created and ascribed to Epicurus, since evil is present inside our world then God as the One who is all knowing, all-good and all-influential cannot exist. In the event that God was present and was supreme, omnipotent, and Omni-benevolent then He would need to avert all the evils, would be familiar with each way that evil could show itself and even would have the force with a specific aim to prevent the presence of evil (Guleserian). Nevertheless, if an individual admits that the evil does undoubtedly exist and furthermore accepts that God is present, then God cannot be all eloquent, all dominant and embody endless goodness as indicated by Epicurus.
When examining the presence of God, each argument takes place inside the system of faith and conviction (Ryan, 2014). Belief is not different when compared to another framework of the world. Belief in a higher power must meet up all the experiments much the same as other frameworks of the world. Likewise, it is imperative to discern that faith does not necessarily mean the non-existence of queries. A belief cannot give answers to all queries. If considered anything, belief just enhances the measure of queries. What should likewise be considered is that any confirmation or proof of God is confidential and prejudiced. There is no unambiguous confirmation for God much the same as there is no substantial proof for an alternate's presence. If there exists any proof, in addition to the fact that it would not only be subjective, the confirmation is an impact of God, not verification of God Himself if He surely is to exist (Guleserian). Unquestionably, the religious belief is focused on the vicinity of a God and the world that turns each occasion into redeemable one and hence admissible, by an individual God who is both eager and ready to support into being a creation that cannot be further improved. It does not grasp that each occasion is great in itself. Appalling things, even repulsive moral evil things, do happen.
Nonetheless, how could the conventional thorn in the favor of such belief be resolved, which demands that if God is all-knowing and omnipotent, He will not allow the evil acts to happen at all. It is more essential to focus on the evil acts people do or the causes due to which these wrongdoings take place. They represent the most genuine issue, and it should be inquired why God allows human beings to perform the evil things (Mackie).
In solving this complexity, the foremost step is to be adamant that a world, which allows the improvement of good character- -one that makes it feasible for individuals to turn into the unfathomably valuable and even glorious creatures, is more noteworthy than any world, which does not. A world containing just minerals, or plants, for instance, would be of significantly lesser worth or natural quality than one that likewise contained individuals as they are seen in today’s world (Ryan, 2014). If identity or personality is not to be viewed as having an exceptionally incredible value, it would plainly not be right of God to allow the actual enduring and wrong-doing that happens keeping in mind the end goal to procure it.
Nevertheless, the moral and ethical development of a personality is conceivable merely in the world of real freedom. To keep up moral perfection, appalling moral criminal acts must be allowed by God. Though, He never favors any of them, realizes them or obliges them Himself. Preserving moral perfection (inside an appropriate world) and not permitting wrongdoing is impracticable. For example, if a kid is never allowed to do anything wrong, he will not become proficient for developing a character or nature that fearlessly select the good (Mackie). People of good moral character must live in current reality where evil-doing is a genuine decision for them.
However, this does not imply that God is constrained in authority, that there exists something He cannot perform, for the unthinkable is not something that could either be done or left undo. For instance, if a janitor does not clean the classroom after a lecture, his chief could rightly call for his attention to him, and oblige that he must do it. But, the chief cannot oblige that he both clean the classroom and not clean it (Ryan, 2014). Cleaning the room and not cleaning the room is not something that is possible or left undone. In fact, it is nothing whatsoever. The reality that the janitor is not capable of doing it does not imply that the janitor is constrained in any manner, as he would surely be if he was without arms or could not hold the floor brush or vacuum cleaner.
Though, this may appear like only a legitimate move, it in fact, offers the conclusion that allows to see the agony of people, in the bigger universe of an extraordinary and powerful God, who possess all endlessness, and assets beyond our most wild ability of thinking. Who guarantees that the life of each person who endures, in any way, will eventually be one that even that individual will get with unlimited appreciation. On the off chance that, all the individuals have “this” sort of life, then evidently evil, bad traits and dissatisfaction is not recovered. However, if it is perceived in the perspective of God's world in general, it should also be perceived as yet a piece of life that never finishes and perpetually gets to be more magnificent.
Hence, the presence and vicinity of evil on the planet does not imply that God is deficient in goodness or in force. The traditional situation is broken down by setting up existing evil in connection of the good traits that God attains in allowing (but not creating) moral evil.
Conclusion
It is a hearty affirmation of the existence of God for any individual who do not endeavor to prove, however just to demonstrate that it is not consequently precluded by the existence of evil in the world. This empowers the individual to tackle the "other" issue of evil: specifically, how to dispose of it. When an individual understands his offering and his affection for the God, this puts the issue of Evil in a totally alternate perspective. For the time being, it could be obviously seen that the genuine problem of evil is the presence of evil inside us. Full of sins and ethically at fault before God, the question that we face is not how God can legitimize His presence to us, but can we justify ourselves before Him.
Works Cited
Ryan, Timothy. The Problem of Evil and the Existence of God. Verbum 9.2 (2014): 69-72.
Mackie, John L. Evil and omnipotence. Mind (1955): 200-212.
Guleserian, Theodore. God and possible worlds: the modal problem of evil. Nous (1983): 221-238.
