How am I doing?
Atheist wrote:If God is omniscient, He would know of how to end evil. Since he would also be able and willing as his godly status demands, there is no reason to believe why He would not act. Evidently, doing nothing to resolve this issue is His choice and, since doing nothing implies that He's unwilling, He would then be malevolent, etc., etc.
"There would be no reason?"
Can you verify that, please? In order to make that argument you have to have a perspective as God would have it. Can you run through every
reason an omnipotent and omniscient being can think of?
If God is omnipotent, then it should be a matter of Him saying, "Evil shall now end," and it ends in that instant. I mean, it was all, "'Let there be light,' and there was light," when dealing with cosmic events before. Why should that not be the case now?
I don't know. I'm not God.
And I'm going to make the assumption that you are not God either. That, again, boils down to the counterargument that we don't
know that God hasn't moved against evil in some way, shape, and/or form, which again is an unproven assumption on your part.
At the very least, it is incredibly odd for Him to be biding his time to end evil like this. The only reason I can think of is that He likes to make a big show of everything. He wants million-person armies and the skies to rain fire and brimstone and the earth to open up and swallow the wicked. From my point of view, this is only to further inflate His cosmic ego. Since humility is a trait that is often associated with goodness, it would seem that this sense of vanity flies in the face of a benevolent being.
Again, are those the only
reasons that an omniscient and omnipotent mind can come up with?
This mini-argument goes like this.
1. God (as defined) has no good reason for letting evil exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. God is either not God (as we know him) or there is no God.
The syllogism flows logically, and I agree that premise 2 is true and provable. However, premise 1 is unproven, thus bringing the argument crashing down.
If there is another "use for evil" that one can come up with, please state it.
I can't think of very many. But then again, I'm not God.
Only one thing is necessary for evil to end: that some being is both willing and able to stop it. If any one of those conditions aren't there, then evil will continue to perpetuate since a non-omnipotent being obviously cannot and an unwilling being has no reason to end evil. If God was truly worthy of his title, he would already know what action needs to happen. There is no "pursuing" involved; He knows what to do, is compelled to do it, and does it.
I don't think so. I think the only way for evil to end (without stripping sentience from the entire universe) is for the universe to be filled with beings who have both free will and
who choose to be in accordance with God's will and nature.
And, again, your argument runs into the problem that God does not have a good reason for evil to exist nd that he has not taken action.
That implies that one without free will would be able to discern if they are being used in this way or not, although I do agree that it is far better to have free will than not. To those without free will and in an environment without evil, I imagine life would be a perpetual state of bliss; no concerns about what may be and everything taken care for them. They would have no reason to be unhappy.
Bliss or not, it does not change the fact that eliminating free will so there would be no disobediance of God's will is transforming people into means-to-an-end. Specifically, will-less people are a means to there being no evil.
Which again is what sounds malevolent.
If evil never existed, we would not know that God is good. He would be good regardless of the existence of evil or not, but we would not be able to discern that. Not really relevant to the argument, but just tossing it out there.