Can any Jew, Christian, Muslim, Zoroastrian or Hindu really stand up to this argument?

Question

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?

If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?

Answer 1

Nope.

*Uuuh folks - the question was about god - not about human free will.

Answer 2

I'm Agnostic but Christians do not believe that God is Omnipotent as he has given Man the Freedom of Choice. If he could prevent our choosing to commit evil acts, then, by definition, he would be taking away our Freedom of Choice. Thus, this "privilege" he has supposedly given us has, in the same turn, taken away some of his power over us. Now, if you claim that because he is not Omnipotent then he is not a God, but still believe the Universe was created by a non-scientific entity, what would you call this entity? I would call it God.

Answer 3

He is able and sometimes willing. But we never know when those sometimes are going to happen. We also are unaware of all the times He doesn't allow it to happen - the person who runs a red light and doesn't crash, the baby that quits breathing and suddenly does again, etc. There are also numerous examples from the Bible when He allowed evil to accomplish a greater purpose - think all the times the Hebrews were enslaved/exiled and yet they were His chosen people.

Answer 4

My Christian point of view; He is able, but not willing. Not because he is malevolent (evil) though. It's because we have free will. What good would free will be if your actions didn't bring the desired consequences? If you rape my women, I might kill you. Killing is a sin, and evil. I don't care though. I want you dead. He has given me that right. Your conflict isn't with God. It's with the people that you screwed over getting you back.

Answer 5

Of course. One assumes that "evil," as defined by our limited and flawed selves is universally evil, and serves no purpose in the greater scheme of things, on a universal, cosmic scale, transcending our so-short and puny existences. Or, it assumes that it even has a greater impact in the grand scheme of things.

If He is omnipotent and omniscient, then He can see the ultimate outcomes, and does not need to intervene if His purpose is ultimately served.

The question assumes a narcissistic point of view where the universe and any God exists to make our existence comfortable.

Answer 6

You have Free Will just like the Devil Chose to become Evil. Isaiah 14:12-17, Daniel 11:37 and the outcome is the same. Revelation 22.

Answer 7

The flaw in your argument is the 2nd statement. It assumes that no good can come from evil. Letting man have free will can result in evil but cannot necessarily be characterized as being malevolent.

Answer 8

God may be perfect and maybe not. Maybe perfection is a human concept but can not describe God. God is too big in scope to define. You are associating God with people... that is the problem with your argument.

Answer 9

A. God is able, thus omnipotent.

B. God is willing, but chooses not to work alone in this. You have to meet him 1/1000th of the way by accepting Him in your life. (That's the small price we have to pay for blowing it in the first place)

C. Evil comes as a natural corollary to Good. without evil, there would be no standard as to what is good. If all choices are equally good then why choose? Without choice, what would be the point of existence?

D. I call Him God because, as I stated previously, He is both able and willing.

Answer 10

in case you have been a verify, and you found out your new child became into, say, a rapist.... could you castrate him? Or could you attempt to steer him to a greater useful way, to a healthful way? Is it malevolent to attempt to steer? If each and every thing is surpassed to us, then we can't improve. the objective of God, it form of feels, is to assist handbook us in our progression spiritually. i'm no longer Christian or whatnot... yet i'm pagan. If he did no longer enable for evil, then he has taken away unfastened will. with out unfastened will, there could be no actual progression of the spirit. So it form of feels he chooses to steer us, teach us, and love us so as that we'd improve as we are meant to do. yet people who opt to no longer improve, and opt to do evil issues harm havoc at something individuals. yet they're given a gamble, too. quite, it quite is the better guy or woman? The naive guy or woman raised in a wealthy residing house, in a stable, sparkling community, rarely ever heard any curse words or whatnot, by no potential observed any evil for the main area... and as a effect, did almost no evil... or, the guy who became into raised in poverty, consistently had to pit morality against survivability, surrounded by potential of evils and consistently in temptation, and emerges from the chaos a stable guy or woman who has fallen to a pair undesirable issues interior the previous? basically because of the fact guy or woman A has carried out fewer undesirable issues does not make him/her a much better guy or woman. I say guy or woman B is better. with out the allowance of evil, the particular power of guy or woman B might desire to by no potential have been made. as a effect, the allowance of evil isn't malevolent. this is yet another of the sacrifices God has made for the basically ideal income of humanity as an entire.

Answer 11

ok, playing devils advocate ( I am none of the above btw), what if,
there is (or was) some higher power in the universe (note the design or utility of things).
And he/she/it felt compelled to put in place , laws of nature/physics that would universally apply to all, no matter the outcome. If all the hindu's got all the breaks, people would convert to hinduism en masse..............