In almost the entire existence of humanity, the introduction of the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good “God” continues to have a long-standing impact. In recent years, many people have wondered whether God is “all-powerful” or “all-good.” This argument is called The Problem of Evil and asks a question: If God exists and is capable of destroying anything, why is there still evil in the world? Many Christian philosophers have objected to this question, arguing that God has given people free will and because of this free will they are able to do whatever they want, even if it is evil. If God removed all evil in the world, he should also be able to remove free will, because this is morally incorrect and would make the world even worse than possible. My view is that if God was meant to be a "morally perfect being", He should have eliminated evil, pain and suffering from the world, because there has recently been too much of it. If God truly loved all of His creations, He would only want the best for His creation, which doesn't seem to be the case at all. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayAccording to “The Problem of Evil” by Michael Tooley, the problem of evil is explained as follows: 1) If God exists, God must to be omnipotent, omniscient and morally good. 2) If God is all-powerful, he should use all his power to destroy all evil and suffering. 3) If God knows everything, he should know when evil is going to happen and should be able to prevent it. 4) If God were morally good, then he would desire to eliminate evil. 5) Evil exists. 6) Now, if evil and God exist and God is not powerful enough to destroy evil, does not know when evil will occur, and/or does not have the desire to destroy evil. 7) So God does not exist. One aspect of this argument is how to read evil in order to better understand it. For some, evil in this context means “unnecessary suffering” in the world. In the free will objection, this newly discovered appeal completely contradicts this argument. To reiterate this, he argues that God gave us free will and that because we have free will, we are allowed to do whatever we want, even if it is bad. But when we define “unnecessary suffering,” we can talk about poverty, natural disasters, disease, etc. This completely contradicts the argument that free will is something humans decide for themselves, aware of the consequences, and are completely chosen at all times. where it is deemed necessary, unnecessary suffering is even random and can occur at any time. This even adds to the question of whether God is truly good if he allows the natural disasters, diseases, etc. that he has created since biblical times to affect and kill his creation. The main subject of this objection is the elimination of free will leads to moral incorrectness, thus leading to a world much worse than it is. However, Tooley argues that if God decided to create a world of humans capable of exercising free will whenever necessary while trying to create a balanced and good world, would He not allow that free will to allow humans to do good things? Let us also return to the omnipotence of which God is supposed to belong. If God is supposed to be so powerful, how can he create free will and give it to humans, yet still allow evil to spread throughout the world, especially when his entire religion's philosophy is to do good . It just doesn't make sense. Another argument.