Challenging the existence of good and evil continues to be widely debated in the field of philosophy of religion, particularly when it comes to debating the moral abilities of God. The existence of evil and suffering in the world poses serious questions about 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 claim that both good and evil must exist and to explain what absolute good and evil are. Also, to delve into the question: why would God allow evil? I intend to show that there is a reason why God would permit evil that does not undermine His omnipotence or power. The world needs some balance in all aspects. If good or evil eliminated the other, this balance would be broken. Since we don't live in a perfect world of absolutes, this can't happen, which makes the subject of good versus evil much more complex. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay “Evil” and “good” are two general terms that need to be defined before considering their absolutes. First, I will address the term “evil”. I will define evil in two ways: a broad concept and a narrow concept. Evil in the broad sense can further be divided into two categories: natural evil and moral evil. Natural evil is known as an evil for which “no non-diving agent can be held morally responsible for its occurrence.” An example of a natural evil would be an earthquake or hurricane. On the other hand, moral evil is inflicted by humans. For example, a thief shooting an innocent human. These two forms of evil broadly defined 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 narrow sense concerns moral judgments. For example, moral aspects of actions, characters, events, etc. This could be anything from walking an elderly woman across the street to helping your neighbor get their groceries out of their car. This narrow concept views human beings as moral agents. Thus, in this context, the appearance of evil is considered to be caused by human action. This form of evil is usually the kind of evil referred to in political and legal situations. Now that I have defined the precepts of good and evil, I will discuss the terms in an "absolute" form. If something is an absolute good, that means it is good because of something in itself. This does not require the opinion or validation of others. This means that he will always be good even if no one testifies to his goodness. In my opinion, absolute good is being good for the sake of being good. You don't care if anyone is there to see you be good. It is more important to be a good person morally than to be a good person purely for the sake of appearances. Conversely, absolute evil occurs when an entity is completely and utterly 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. This could be empathy, compassion, or simple kindness. The problem of evil refers to the question of how an omnibenevolent (all good), omniscient (all knowing), and omnipotent (all powerful) God would allow evil to exist. How could such a God allow the existence of human suffering, premature deaths and blatant moral failings? Obviously, there is amajor problem. Despite the problem of evil, some philosophers reject the idea that God is all-powerful and omniscient. This seems to be able to “free God” from 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 wonder if this being is truly omnipotent and omniscient. Proponents of this view believe that God is not omnipotent and cannot know everything. So he cannot control the future. Because of this disability, He has no control over the evil in the world. However, this idea would require some faiths to question their most fundamental tenets. If God is not omnipotent and omniscient, is there really a God? The fact that God allows evil to occur discredits the idea that there even is a God. If there really was an absolutely benevolent and all-powerful God, then 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 is not to say that God himself does not exist, but simply that we need to change the way we think about God. Maybe He isn't something amazing and all-powerful. All humans have their flaws, and if God created humans and modeled them after himself, that would mean that God also has flaws. This could be one reason why God allows evil in the world. He simply couldn't be as omnipotent and morally perfect as we were led to believe. However, it is possible to maintain the belief that God is all-powerful while simultaneously recognizing the existence of evil: God allows evil to demonstrate to humans that not everything can be perfect. If God did not allow evil to occur in the world, it could upset the balance of life. If everything in the world is too perfect and too beautiful, people will get bored. In turn, this could cause people to act and perhaps even commit evil acts themselves. God could permit evil as a means of maintaining the natural cycle of life. Maybe God doesn't want the world to be happy and mechanically perfect at all times. Maybe it can't even be that way. When it comes to natural evils, such as disease, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc., some would say that it is part of an orderly natural process. Those who hold this believe that natural evil arises from the combination of deterministic laws, according to which everything occurs due to strict laws of nature. Everything has a cause and an effect. Evil can be situational and natural evil is something that seems 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 goes like this: It is impossible for God to create free beings and further promise that these beings will never do anything evil. According to this view, free will is so important that it is worth the price of evil. The argument against free will, as stated by Louis J. Pojman, is this: 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 the cause of himself. Even God is not causa sui. 3. No one is therefore truly free and responsible. The root of Pojman's argument is that there is no real free will. We are not the cause of our states of mind and we are not the cause of ourselves. Therefore, a person cannot be free or responsible. If free will is truly worth the price of evil,then the omnipotence of God is once again called into question. Furthermore, if free will doesn't really exist, perhaps it's human nature that is inherently evil. Another answer is the defense of soul creation theodicy created by John Hick, which stems from the defense of free will. The creation of souls theodicy holds that God allows certain evils in the world because it strengthens one's positive character. According to Hick, the world is an arena that promotes moral development. So, essentially, all the evil in the world will contribute to the greater good of the people. Hick argues that if the world were perfect and there was no possibility of suffering, pain, and death, then we could not be held responsible for our actions and we would have no opportunity to prove our virtue. This view also holds that humanity was created in the image of God, but not in his likeness. The world is therefore a place where humans have the ability to develop their character to completely resemble God . This positive growth exceeds the negative value of evil itself. Even with the defense of free will and theodicy, the problem of evil remains. One of the major criticisms is that God who is supposed to be all-powerful, omniscient and omnipotent does not intervene on the evil in the world. Couldn't an all-knowing God have expected or seen in advance the suffering of the world and created a world in which people do not commit as much evil as they do today? And why doesn't God intervene in events that cause global suffering, like the Holocaust? Following Hicks, one might respond that He refrains from action to teach people a lesson and enable them to build their character. But this seems ineffective. If God is all-powerful, then He should have been powerful and intelligent enough to provide humans with free will, the ability to learn from our mistakes, while also being able to create a world where feedback could be made available. We hope this will prevent harm from happening. One would hope that there is a better way to teach people morality without considering all the consequences of evil. We can affirm 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 this by setting a limit on God's abilities, implying that God cannot create good without also creating evil. However, this means that God is not all-powerful. Or there is a limit to what an omnipotent thing can do, which contradicts the very meaning of omnipotence. This goes back to the very idea that God may not exist if he is not omnipotent. This makes people question their faith once again. Good and evil are not capable of eliminating 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 or bad acts. You have to have one to have the other. Without it, it could not even be considered absolute. This would simply be the new normal. Furthermore, according to Mackie, this solution is implausible because he rejects the claim that every quality must have a counterpart. Mackie argues that if an entity is larger than another entity, there must also be an entity smaller than that entity. But this would then mean that good and evil do not oppose each other, because good does not seek to eliminate evil as much as possible, but rather needs it. In conclusion, we can see that the argument of, 2018,, 1998.