Therefore Christianity Suffers from the Problem of Evil.

P1: If the Christian God is all knowing, all good, and all powerful; then Christianity suffers from the Problem of Evil.

P2: The Christian God is all knowing, all good, and all powerful.

C: Therefore Christianity suffers from the Problem of Evil.

        Of this issue, many terms may contain multiple common meanings. For the rest of this paper, the following terms will be referred to only in reference to the following definitions. With this is mind, the biggest definition to cover is obviously that of the issue itself, the Problem of Evil. This term can be summed up as whether a religion with a god who is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent can evade or explain why there is evil in the world when the god, due to the preceding, can prevent it. Omniscience will refer to being all knowing, omnibenevolence all good, and omnipotence all powerful (Ferreira, Jan 11). Christianity will refer to the monotheistic religion believing that Jesus Christ is the son of the Christian God and following his teachings.

        The significance in this topic lies solely in the credibility of a god that can be omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent, but allows for evil to effect their followers and the world as a whole. With this in mind, many religions solve this problem by getting rid of one of the former three characteristics, but Christianity has chosen to keep all three and continued to attempt to explain the issue of why this is the case. So, in order to keep judge Christianity, the morals and ethics of the religion should be considered whether they are correct or rational when the tradition makes contradictions based solely on their concept of god. Without these questions, Christianity will be unable to provide sound proof of their beliefs, as they all hinge on the existence and competence of their God.

        The premises within the position of the topic are framed as such for multiple reasons. Premise 1 provides the entirety of the issue at hand, and is what both sides of the argument must ultimately address and explain. The second proves that the conclusion is a valid one, as with half of premise 1 confirmed the other half must logically follow suit. This is shown explicitly in Christian doctrines, as their God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Thus, as a God who has the ability, the knowledge, and the compassion to keep His people safe from harm, with evil doing present in the world still the Problem of Evil exists.

According to multiple sources, the Problem of Evil is prevalent in faiths that have an all knowing, all powerful, and all benevolent God, as any being who has the power, knowledge, and care for the world and/ or its inhabitants would not allow for evil to exist in the world (Ferreira, Jan 11). This can easily be fixed with concessions given to the deity in question. For example, in Zoroastrianism, their God was not omnibenevolent, so even though he had the power and knowledge to stop evil, he had no wish to (Ferreira, Jan 11). With the Christian God portrayed as omnibenevolent, this can not apply, as he would be filled with the wish for only good upon all things. The Christians also give no leeway in the omniscient or omnipotent areas. With their God as all knowing, he can not claim ignorance of where or when or how evil continues in the world. With their God as all powerful, he can not claim to be unable to halt evils actions in the world. Thus, the Problem of Evil persists, as a God who knows where evil is, has the power to stop it, and the motivation to see it gone from the world still allows evil to continue to the world and its inhabitants.

In response to this issue, Christianity has instead posed the question of “what is omnibenevolence”? An all good God would wish for His creations to pursue their happiness, so to take away sinners entirely, or stop all “evil” in it’s path (Gotquestions.org) would result in a God who does not look out for what is best for the people as individuals. Christianity further argues that to look out for the people by taking away evil would prevent them from bettering themselves. No person would be able to pursue what they wish for, as the journey through life is fraught with mistakes to grow and move past (Beisner and Meister). All people, without this, would be more machine than man, as free will is what makes the people human. So, the argument cements that while the Christian God is still all knowing and all powerful, allowing evil in the world does not take away from his omnibenevolence, but instead proves it. His omnibenevolence is instead looked at as an example to follow, rather than an active contribution to diminishing evil in the world. Through the works of Alvin Plantinga, the idea of evil being justifiable to an omnibenevolent being is explored. It is through him that an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent god cannot be truly omnibenevolent with their creations without looking at their free will, as determining their actions would not only be considered bad ethics on their (the god in questions’) part, but lack the understanding of how good and evil are brought about by the humans themselves. A creature with free will must thus have the ability to do things that are considered morally wrong, and thus God cannot insure an evil free world (Plantinga).