In the present world, people believe that there is extreme suffering and evil. Consequently, people find it extremely hard to believe that there is an impeccable God. In case God knew all things, He would be aware of the terrible things that take place globally.
And if God had extreme mighty, He would have the power to control all the suffering and wicked occurrences. In addition, His moral perfectness would urge Him to control all the sinful happenings.
However, the world has immense suffering and miserable occurrences, which goes against the orthodox theist proclamation; a spotlessly fair God has control over the world. This poses an apparent conflict. There is a logical conflict in regard to the orthodox theism proclamations, and the existence of misery and wickedness.
This paper aims at discussing the logical conflict. Moreover, there is a focus on the different theistic reactions to this issue. Free will defense has been given keen attention, since it is the most discussed theistic reaction.
George Barna conducted a countrywide survey, in which the participants were given a chance to pose the most important question they would ask God. Seventeen percent of the participants had questions in regard to why there was extreme suffering and pain.
If God was all- dominant, knew everything, and exceptionally good, why did He let bad things happen? Moreover, a majority of the people who suffer terminal illnesses and catastrophic losses are the tender- hearted and innocent.
The concern as to why God permits bad things to happen, poses a moral protest. In questioning why God permits bad things, the majority people confess that God is not fair. Various atheists associate the presence of suffering and evil with the absence of a caring God.
These atheists assert that since the justly impeccable God has a moral imperfectness, He allows wickedness and misery to happen to the just and innocent people. Therefore, there had better be no God who people believe, but end up suffering.
The concept of elaborating the existence of God and evil is referred to as problem of evil. Some people argue that evil and God are unlikely to exist together. Wide arrays of reactions regarding this issue have been offered. There are elaborations that the decree and creation deeds from God, are one and the same thing.
The misery and wickedness that people undergo through results from God’s condemnation to the world He created. This judgment cannot be stopped as God is exceptionally mighty, His will undisputable, and He will subject His people to everlasting and endless judgment on the last day.
To some extent, this elaboration proves that God is good, since He passes good judgment to the evil. Another elaboration is that God has given free will to His people. Sometimes, God’s people misuse this free will. Moreover, spiritual and individual growth comes after a person has undergone through suffering.
If God was fair, miserable things would only happen to evil people, such as Osama bin Laden. Just and innocent people would be saved from all the misfortunes that occur in the world. Would God, who is loving and caring, permit misery and wickedness to happen to His people? Consider the recent bombings and wars.
God would have predicted them, and done His best to stop them. Are these proofs that God does not exist? A majority of the people believe that the presence of wickedness and misery in the world, is the first evidence to the inexistence of God.
Dealing with this concern amicably calls for a clear differentiation between intellectual and emotional evil problem. The intellectual issue regards giving a logical elaboration on the coexistence of evil and God.
On the other hand, the emotional issue focuses on dissolving the hate people have towards God, for allowing suffering.
It is impossible for evil and God to exist together. If evil exists, then God is inexistent, and vice versa. There is no proven consistency between evil’s and God’s existence. Logically, there exists no unambiguous contradiction.
Acquiring an implicit contradiction calls for hidden and true assumptions. Such premises have not been established by any philosopher.
Contemporary arguments concerning God’s existence have been criticized intensively by philosophers. However, the theologian can admit this criticism if he wills. On the other hand, he can argue that God’s existence is perceived in a non- rational manner.
It is worth emphasizing that there are rational backups for religious beliefs. On the contrary, they are usually irrational. Some portions of vital theological guidelines are inconsistent. Therefore, theologians should demonstrate a willingness to believe.
In essence, this argument proves that it is not easy to simply prove the existence of evil and God. There is a need for extra premises, to prove that wickedness and good go against each other, and that God is just.
He is in control of everything, and cares for every creature. Evil deeds can be eliminated if people use their free will meaningfully.