Aquinas Argument Essay

1349 Words 6 Pages

The existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God is coherent despite the subsistence of horrendous evil in the world. Two major points are argued for in this paper lead to this conclusion. Firstly, evil is deemed not to be a “thing”; for everything in the world is created by the omnibenevolent God and as a good being; God is not one to create evil things (Jackson, 2014). Critics argue that if God exists and if God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good; He would have the power, the knowledge, and will be willing to prevent evil from existing in the world. However with the imminent evil, it had been claimed by some philosophers that there is no God. By way of reply to this concern, secondly signifying that God
…show more content…
Secondly; affirming that evil is not a “thing” created by God meant that God is not omnipotent or omniscient. Some philosophers strongly believe that He is not all powerful, all-knowing or all-good for He has limited control over, and is not willing to prevent the horrific evil happening in the world. Jackson, 2014 stated that Aquinas initially explained that evil occur as a choice, it is not something intended by God to happen and so, in the context of natural evil, it cannot be said that earthquakes or volcano eruptions are chosen by the Earth or the volcano to ensue, as these God creations does not have the knowledge or the power to choose what can occur. Natural evil is not a privation of good nor is it the absence of the ultimate good that men are able to control, rather natural evil is the normal product of God’s creation (Jackson, 2014). God made eruptions and earthquakes as the nature’s normal consequence, which consequently suggests that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God does not exists. For if He does exist He would prevent natural evil from transpiring. Additionally, Jackson 2014 argued that Aquinas reasoned that evil is not a real substance, for if it was it will be one created by God …show more content…
God might have allowed us to suffer through pain so we can learn and we would be able to appreciate the good things in life much better. It may as well act as a cautionary sign from God to not do things that can instigate harm to our physiques or to the people surrounding us (Creel, 2013). Despite some philosophers’ such as Madden, Leibniz and Rowe’s arguments pointing out that the extensive and extent of evil in the world cannot justify the unseen greater good that may come about, it does not necessarily mean that there is no greater good that would occur or that God does not exist as some would have believed since these states of affairs are the kind which a supreme being would not allow God (Creel, 2008; Trakakis, 2006). Nevertheless, God cannot be held responsible for evil. This is because God does not possess human potentialities provided to human beings, which accordingly gives them the free will to choose between living up to the good nature initially brought to them, or doing evil (Creel, 2013). God, as defined by Feuerbach and Wiemean is just an “idea of ideal human potentialities; a natural force, which promotes and sustains human good.” (Creel, 2013). Therefore, it can be said that the subsistence of evil does not mean the absence of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent

Related Documents