Judeo-Christian Argument Analysis

The foundation of Judeo-Christian beliefs is the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. This belief is held in absolutes, even in the face of evil and tragedy. Those outside of religion see these beliefs as contradicting, arguing that God cannot be all-good and all-powerful while at the same time allowing evil to occur. The “argument from evil”, often used by those who are agnostic or atheist, are a set of premises that have stumped theists in the argument for an all-good and all-powerful God in the presence of evil (Pojman 117). However, the belief of an all-good and all-powerful God can be defended by considering what the meaning of the word “good” is in the first place and how it relates to God’s influence on humanity. The argument

The one put into question is that God cannot be all-good while at the same time being omnipotent and allowing evil to exist. If he can do something about evil and does nothing, then he is therefore not all-good. But what does the word “good” mean exactly? To obtain a definition for “good”, the free-will defense must be analyzed. The free will defense is a premise added to the original three of the Judeo-Christian belief in God, stating that it is impossible for God to allow creatures to be free-willed and prevent them from committing evil acts (Pojman 117). God’s interference against this free-will will ultimately be an act of evil, as him interfering on horribly evil acts means he must interfere with acts that are less evil, as they cause the greater evil in the first place (“The Problem of Evil” 7). For example, if God steps in to prevent all murder, he would have to put a stop to all actions that may have caused people to murder in the first place. These lesser evils could include many things, ranging from firing a firearm to watching violent television programs. The prevention of these lesser evils infringes on what we as humans can do and such interference is evil (“The Problem of Evil”