Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The concept of God as omnipotent – all-powerful – is central to many theological doctrines. However, this very notion becomes problematic when confronted with the undeniable existence of evil and suffering in the world. The ‘problem of evil’ questions how an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God can allow evil to exist. This leads to the ‘paradox of omnipotence’: if God is truly omnipotent, can He prevent evil? And if He *can* prevent evil but doesn’t, is He truly all-good? This essay will explore this paradox, examining the logical challenges it presents to traditional conceptions of divine attributes.
Defining Omnipotence and Evil
Omnipotence is traditionally defined as the ability to do anything logically possible. This qualification is crucial; it’s not about performing logical contradictions (e.g., creating a square circle). Evil, in this context, refers to suffering, pain, and moral wrongdoing. The problem isn’t merely natural evil (earthquakes, diseases) but also moral evil (caused by human actions).
The Paradox Explained
The paradox arises from the seemingly incompatible attributes of God. If God is omnipotent, He has the power to eliminate all evil. If God is omnibenevolent (all-good), He *would* want to eliminate all evil. Yet, evil persists. This creates a trilemma: either God is not omnipotent, not omnibenevolent, or evil has a justifiable reason for existing.
Philosophical Responses and Their Limitations
The Free Will Defense
One common response, articulated by thinkers like Alvin Plantinga, is the ‘free will defense’. This argues that God granted humans free will, and evil is a consequence of humans choosing to misuse that freedom. However, this doesn’t explain natural evil, which isn’t directly attributable to human choices. Furthermore, it raises questions about why God couldn’t create beings with free will who consistently choose good.
The Theodicy (Justification of God)
Theodicy attempts to justify God’s allowance of evil by arguing it serves a greater purpose. For example, evil might be necessary for moral development, allowing humans to learn compassion and courage. However, this justification seems inadequate when considering the immense suffering experienced by innocent individuals, particularly children. It also implies that God could not achieve these goals without resorting to such extreme suffering.
Logical Positivism and the Meaninglessness of the Question
Logical positivists, like A.J. Ayer, argued that the question itself is meaningless. They claimed that statements about God are unverifiable and therefore fall outside the realm of meaningful discourse. This doesn’t resolve the paradox but rather dismisses it as a non-question.
Process Theology
Process theology, developed by Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne, offers a different perspective. It posits that God is not all-powerful in the sense of being able to unilaterally control events. Instead, God influences the world through persuasion rather than coercion. Evil arises from the inherent freedom and creativity of the universe, and God suffers *with* creation, attempting to minimize harm. This view diminishes God’s traditional omnipotence but offers a more nuanced explanation for the existence of evil.
The Problem of Logical Possibility
A further complication arises when considering the limits of logical possibility. Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it? If He can, He is not omnipotent because He cannot lift it. If He cannot, He is not omnipotent because He cannot create such a stone. This illustrates that the very concept of omnipotence may be internally contradictory, leading to a logical impasse.
Conclusion
The paradox of omnipotence in the context of evil remains a profound philosophical challenge. While various responses have been offered – from free will defenses to process theology – none fully resolve the inherent tension between divine attributes and the reality of suffering. The paradox highlights the limitations of human attempts to comprehend the nature of God and the complexities of existence. Ultimately, the question may not have a definitive answer, forcing us to grapple with the mystery of evil and the limits of our understanding.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.