Omnipotence and Benevolence are Mutually Exclusive

1) The Epicurean Paradox does not demonstrate the Resolution a) The Resolution says only that Omnipotence and Benevolence are mutually exclusive. The Epicurean Paradox relies on god being able to prevent evil, but this ability requires more than mere omnipotence. The ability to prevent evil requires both omnipotence and omniscience. An analogy: I have both the ability and the desire to prevent stray kittens living in my basement from starving, but if I do not know there are starving kittens in my basement those little kitties will starve nonetheless. Similarly, the Resolution leaves open the possibility of an ignorant god- a god which is omnipotent and benevolent but is unaware of the existence of evil. Thus the Pro’s argument fails to prove the Resolution. b) The Epicurean Paradox relies on the existence of evil; the Resolution only concerns Omnipotence and Benevolence. The Resolution says Omnipotence and benevolence are mutually exclusive. The Paradox tries to show that omnipotence, benevolence, and evil are mutually exclusive. The paradox falls apart if any one of those three is removed and therefore does not prove that the two items in the Resolution are incompatible. Looking to Pro’s definition of mutually exclusive, he must show that “the occurrence of one precludes the occurrence of the other.” The paradox fails to do this. 2) The existence of evil is necessary for the well-being of humanity. If the existence of evil is required for the well-being of humanity, then a benevolent god would allow evil to exist. The paradox is then dissolved. a) The possibility of evil is required for free will A world with morally free beings (people) is better than a world without morally free beings. Moral freedom requires the ability to freely choose the good. Such a choice requires the real possibility for people to choose to act in an evil manner. It happens to be the case that many people use their moral freedom to act in an evil manner. A world in which people are incapable of committing evil acts is logically incompatible with a world in which people are morally free. Omnipotence does not entail the ability to do things which are logically impossible, so there is no conflict with the Resolution. b) Suffering and adversity are required for moral growth Pleasure is not in itself good and suffering is not in itself evil. Excessive pleasure can be harmful; people can grow lazy and uncreative in environments of excess. Suffering can lead to great good; people can respond to suffering with tremendous personal growth and great acts of charity and compassion. The heroes of humanity have all emerged out of great suffering or have overcome great adversity. Gandhi became a model of peace and discipline in response to the great injustice of colonial India. Lewis and Clark gained renown for their courage in exploring the dangerous expanse of the American West. The benevolence of god is best served by providing a world that allows humans to flourish and grow. A benevolent god would not place humans in a paradise where they would grow fat, bland, and have no opportunity for moral growth. For this reason, a benevolent god would not create morally free beings and place them in absolute comfort and total provision. Instead he would create a world in which people have the tools to flourish but must work and strive to do so. 3) Pro assumes that a world without evil is possible a) If it is logically impossible for a world without evil to exist, then there is no conflict between an omnibenevolent/omnipotent god and a world with evil. We have no way of knowing whether a world without evil is possible, thus we have no reason to see any problem with the existence of evil. b) Additionally, if a world without evil could exist, it may be the case that such a world would be less valuable than the world we currently live in. If this is the cause then there is no conflict with the components of Pro’s paradox. This is a more generalized version of my 2) argument. Evil could exist because it is logically necessary for the valuable aspects of the world we live in. I don’t need to prove a) and b) to win this debate; I only need to defend their plausibility. If a) and b) are plausible, then it is at least possible for omnipotence and benevolence to coexist; the two items are then not mutually exclusive. 4) Pro assumes total knowledge of the moral nature of the universe Events which appear “evil” may ultimately cause an amount of good that far exceeds the original good. Additionally, it may be the case that much of the good that results from Consider a young couple leaving a theater in a busy city. As they pass an alley a man darts out, mugs the couple, and leaves them for dead. A great evil has been done! But it turns out this couple was very wealthy and left behind a young child. This child eventually grows up and vows to go to extreme lengths to become a force for good in the world. He puts on a cape and every night goes around the city fighting crime and doing good deeds. Eventually the city comes to take great hope in their incredible protector and calls the man Batman. A seemingly evil event ultimately resulted in a story of great heroism and led to a renewal of hope in a large city. In light of the incredible good caused by the original murder, we can see that what appeared to be an instance of evil was only a small part of a greater narrative of good. Our perspective is limited. What appears evil to us may actually be a microscopic part of a universe which is on the whole good.