One of the premises of the ontological argument is that the concept of the omnipotent is logically consistent, but is the concept of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent also logically consistent? Or, is it impossible and we are left with only an omnipotent being? According to the Argument from Evil, it is not.
The Argument from Evil is relatively simple. To make things easier, let's just call the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being God. If God is omnibenevolent, God would stop all evil that God is capable of stopping and knows about from happening. Since God is omniscient, God knows when something evil is going to happen and since God is omnipotent, God is capable of stopping it. So, why is there evil in the world? The atheist's response is that, at least, God doesn't exist, or, at most, the concept of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being is logically incoherent; that is, God is impossible. So, what's my answer?
Evil exists because, in order to create an ethically relevant world, which God is obligated to do because God is omnibenevolent, God must create a world in which free will is possible (thus allowing for intentional evils); also, the best of all possible worlds, one in which all free willed beings freely choose to do good, must be possible. In order to do this, God is obligated to make it so that causation is probablistic, that is, that, given any particular present, there is more than one possible future (in a deterministic cosmos, there is one and only one possible future given any particular present); this allows for so-called natural evils such as hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.. Furthermore, because God is omnipotent, God is obligated to not directly interfere with the world unless free will becomes impossible; this is because the active will of an omnipotent being determines one and only one possible outcome, thus negating free will.
So, in short, I'm a deist.
No comments:
Post a Comment