Challenging the existence of good and evil continues to be widely debated in the field of philosophy of religion, particularly when discussing the moral capabilities of God. The existence of evil and suffering in the world poses serious problems for the existence of God. More specifically, for the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent and omniscient God. The purpose of this essay is to develop a general argument for the proposition that good and evil must exist and to explain what absolute good and evil are. Also, to delve deeper into the question: why would God allow evil? I intend to show that there is a reason why God would allow evil that does not undermine his omnipotence or power. The world requires balance in all aspects. If good or evil were to eliminate the other, this balance would be disrupted. Since we don't live in a perfect world of absolutes, this cannot happen, making the topic of good versus evil much more complex. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay “Evil” and “good” are both general terms that need to be defined before considering them absolute. First I'll get into the term "evil." I will define evil in two ways: a broad concept and a narrow concept. Evil in a broad sense can be further divided into two categories: natural evil and moral evil. Natural evil is known as evil for which “no non-underwater agent can be held morally responsible for its occurrence.” An example of a natural disaster would be an earthquake or hurricane. On the other hand, moral evil is inflicted by human beings. For example, a thief shooting an innocent human being. These two forms of evil in a broad sense are generally the type of evil referred to in theological frameworks, such as the problem of evil, which I will discuss later. Furthermore, evil in the strict sense refers to moral judgments. For example, moral aspects of actions, characters, events, and so on. This could be anything from walking an elderly woman across the street to helping your neighbor carry groceries out of the car. The narrow concept considers human beings as moral agents. So, in this context, the occurrence of evil is thought to be caused by human action. This form of evil is generally the type of evil referred to in political and legal situations. Now that I have defined the precepts for good and evil, I will discuss the terms in “absolute” form. If something is an absolute good it means that it is good for something in itself. It does not require other people's opinions or validation. This means that it will still be good even if no one witnesses its goodness. In my opinion, absolute good is being good for the sake of being good. You don't care if there's someone around to see you be good. It is more important to be a good person out of moral principle than to be a good person just for the sake of appearances. In contrast, absolute evil is when an entity is completely and totally immoral and malevolent in its essence. Absolute evil is the absence of absolute good. On the other hand, absolute good is everything that absolute evil lacks. It could be empathy, compassion, or simple kindness. The problem of evil refers to the question of how an omnibenevolent (all good), omniscient (omniscient), and omnipotent (omnipotent) God would allow evil to exist. How could such a God allow the existence of human suffering, premature death, and gross moral misconduct? Clearly there is a big problem. Despite the problem of evil, some philosophers reject that God is omnipotent and omniscient. This seems to be able to get God “off the hook” howeverit's about evil. Those who take this approach accept a limited God. These people still believe that God is good and the greatest being possible. However, they question whether this being is truly omnipotent and omniscient. Supporters of this view believe that God is not actually omnipotent and cannot know everything. Therefore, he cannot control the future. Because of this handicap, He has no control over the evil in the world. However, this idea would require some faiths to question their most fundamental principles. If God is not omnipotent and omniscient, then is there really a God? The fact that God allows evil to happen discredits even the idea that there is a God. If there really were an absolutely benevolent and omnipotent God, he simply would not allow evil to exist. Personally I believe that the presence of so much evil and cruelty in the world demonstrates that God, at least as we know him, does not exist. This isn't to say that God himself doesn't exist, but simply that we need to change the way we think about God. Maybe it's not some amazing omnipotent thing. All human beings have their flaws, and if God created them and fashioned them after His pattern, that would mean that God also has flaws. This may be one reason why God allows evil in the world. He simply could not be as omnipotent and morally perfect as we have been led to believe. However, it is possible to maintain the belief that God is omnipotent and at the same time recognize the existence of evil: God allows evil to be demonstrated to human beings. not everything can be perfect. If God did not allow evil to happen in the world, it could upset the balance of life. If everything in the world was too perfect and too beautiful, people would be bored. In turn, this could cause people to act out and perhaps even commit evil acts. God may allow evil as a way to keep the natural cycle of life alive. Maybe God doesn't want the world to always be happy and mechanically perfect. Maybe it can't even be that way. As for natural evils, such as diseases, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc. some might argue that this is part of an orderly process of nature. People who argue this believe that natural evil arises from the combination of deterministic laws, which state that everything happens due to strict laws of nature. Everything has a cause and an effect. Evil can be situational, and natural evil is something that seems to be necessary in the world. Another response to the problem of evil is known as the free will defense. This adds another premise to the problem of evil which is the following: it is impossible for God to create free beings and further promise that these beings will never do anything evil. This view holds that free will is so important that it is worth the price of evil. The argument against free will, as laid out by Louis J. Pojman, is that 1. To be truly free and responsible for our actions, we must be the cause of what we are (our states of mind). 2. No one is his own cause. Not even God is causa sui. 3. So no one is truly free and responsible. The root of Pojman's thesis is that there really is no such thing as free will. We are not the cause of our moods and we are not the cause of ourselves. For this reason a person cannot be free or responsible. If free will is truly worth the price of evil, then God's omnipotence is once again called into question. Furthermore, if free will doesn't actually exist, perhaps it is human nature that is inherently evil. Another response is John Hick's defense of the soul-creating theodicy, which derives from the defense of free will. The soul-creating theodicyargues that God allows evil in the world because it builds the positive character of the individual. According to Hick, the world is an arena that fosters moral development. So essentially, all the bad in the world will contribute to the greater good of people. Hick argues that if the world were a perfect world and there was no possibility of suffering, pain, and death, then we could not be held accountable for our actions and would not have the opportunity to demonstrate our virtue. This view also holds that humanity was created in the image of God, but not in the likeness of God. Thus the world is a place where human beings have the ability to develop their character in the complete likeness of God. This positive growth surpasses the negative value of evil itself. Even with free will and the defense of theodicy, the problem of evil still remains. One of the main criticisms is that God, who is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipotent, does not intervene in evil in the world. Couldn't an omniscient God have expected or seen the suffering in the world in advance and created a world where people don't commit as much evil as they do now? And why doesn't God intervene in events that cause suffering on a global scale, such as the Holocaust? Following Hicks, one might respond that He refrains from action to teach people a lesson and allow them to build their character. But this seems to be inefficient. If God is omnipotent, then he should have been powerful and intelligent enough to provide humans with free will, the ability to learn from our mistakes, and at the same time be able to create a world in which feedback could be made available. Hopefully this would in turn prevent evil from occurring. Hopefully there is a better way to teach people morality without taking into account all the consequences of evil. It can be argued that good cannot exist without evil or that evil is necessary as a counterpart to good. This can be seen as a way to solve the problem of evil. It does so by placing a limit on God's capabilities, implying that God cannot create good without also creating evil at the same time. However, this means that God is not omnipotent. Or there is a limit to what an omnipotent thing can do, which contradicts the very meaning of omnipotent. This goes back to the very idea that perhaps God doesn't exist if He isn't omnipotent. Thus leading people to begin to question their faith once again. Good and evil are unable to eliminate each other once and for all. You need the good in the world to know what the bad is and you need the bad in the world to be able to see all the good. One could never eliminate the other because there would always be people who would continue to do good deeds or bad deeds. You have to have one to have the other. Without this it could not even be considered absolute. It would simply be the new normal. Furthermore, according to Mackie this solution is implausible because it rejects the claim that any quality must have a counterpart. Mackie argues that if an entity is larger than another entity then there must also be an entity that is smaller than that entity. But then this would mean that good and evil are not opposed, because good does not seek to eliminate evil to its fullest capacity, but instead needs it. In conclusion, it can be seen that the free will argument is the most plausible response to defend God's omnipotence and morally perfect characteristics in the presence of evil. It is better that God created free beings who sin than humans who mechanically do good as a result of determinism. It maintains balance in the world. Having free will, 2018,, 1998.