God is Good
God is good: The Supreme Being, the Divine
The distinction between “God” and “god” in English usage is primarily one of capitalization, reflecting a difference in meaning. When referring to the supreme being, the creator and ruler of the universe, the word is capitalized as “God.” This is common in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
The lowercase “god” can refer to a deity in a polytheistic system, a supernatural being with powers over a specific aspect of life or the world, or even a person or thing that is the object of extreme devotion, such as an idol or a powerful ruler.
The statement “We can be gods and never be God” highlights this distinction. It suggests that individuals can embody certain divine-like qualities or achieve a high status (becoming “gods” in a metaphorical sense), but this does not equate to being the singular, supreme deity (“God”). This concept is echoed in some theological discussions where humans are seen as capable of reflecting divine attributes or achieving a state of grace, but not of becoming the ultimate divine being.
The assertion that “god” means “good” in the Anglo-Saxon language is incorrect. The word for “god” in Anglo-Saxon is god, which is related to the German Gott and has been in use since before the 12th century. This term refers to the supreme being or a deity. The English word “good” originates from the Old English word gōd and has a separate etymological path.
The interpretation that “we can all be gods” means “we can all be good” is a metaphorical or philosophical extension, not a linguistic one. In ancient Middle Eastern worldviews, there were instances where humans could become gods, or claim divine ancestry, but this was distinct from the general meaning of the word “god” as a divine being.
Regarding the quote attributed to Jesus, “you can be god, all of you,” this likely refers to a spiritual or moral potential for humans to embody divine qualities or attain a state of grace, rather than a literal transformation into deities. In Christian theology, the concept of the “Godhead” refers to the divine nature or essence of God.
The connection between “God” and “good” is rooted in the etymology of the word “good.” The English word “good” originates from the Old English word gōd, which is distinct from the Old English word for the supreme being, “god.” While “god” is related to the German Gott, “good” (gōd) is akin to the Old High German guot.
The capitalization of “God” signifies the supreme being, worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe in monotheistic religions. The lowercase “god” can refer to deities in polytheistic systems or beings with supernatural attributes. The phrase “God is good” reflects the theological concept that the supreme being possesses the quality of goodness, which is seen as a fundamental attribute of divinity.
The word “god” has its origins in Old English, with the first known use dating back to before the 12th century. It is related to the Old High German word got.
The concept of worshipping a supreme being, referred to as “God” (capitalized), as the creator and ruler of the universe is central to monotheistic religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In these traditions, God is understood as being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness.
The use of “god” (lowercase) can refer to deities in polytheistic systems, beings with supernatural powers controlling specific aspects of reality, or even objects of extreme devotion. For instance, ancient Canaanite deities like Baal and the Hebrew God Yahweh both began as storm gods, with Baal developing into a lord of nature.
The term “god” has also been used to describe powerful rulers or figures of supreme value. The practice of worshipping a supreme being as “God” has ancient roots, with theological discussions and doctrines evolving over centuries to define the nature and attributes of this divine entity.
The problem of evil is a theological and philosophical challenge that arises when considering the existence of an almighty, perfectly good God alongside the reality of evil in the world. This dilemma questions how an all-powerful and benevolent deity could permit suffering and wrongdoing.
The core of the problem can be articulated as follows: If God is willing to prevent evil but is unable, then God is impotent. If God is able to prevent evil but is unwilling, then God is malevolent. If God is both able and willing, then evil should not exist. Yet, evil clearly does exist.
Theological responses to this problem, known as theodicies, attempt to justify God’s allowance of evil. One prominent approach, stemming from St. Augustine, views all evil as a consequence of humanity’s Fall—Adam and Eve’s sin—leading to both moral and natural evils. Another perspective, influenced by St. Irenaeus, sees the world as an environment for human growth and maturation, where evil, though undesirable, is a necessary part of developing virtues like courage and compassion.
Other strategies include the free will defense, which posits that moral evil is a consequence of human freedom, a state considered more valuable than a world of automatons. Some argue that certain evils are preconditions for greater goods, such as the development of virtues like patience and forgiveness. Additionally, the concept of a life after death is often invoked, suggesting that present suffering is temporary and will be remedied or understood in an afterlife.
The concept of divine attributes, particularly the “omnis,” describes the characteristics attributed to God in many theological traditions. These attributes are used to define God’s nature and relationship with the universe.
Omnipotence
Omnipotence refers to the quality or state of being almighty or having unlimited power and authority. It signifies that God possesses the capacity to do anything that is logically possible.
Omniscience
Omniscience denotes the attribute of having unlimited knowledge. This means God knows all things, past, present, and future. In classical theism, God’s knowledge includes the totality of time, with the future known as if it were laid out before God.
Omnipresence
Omnipresence describes the state of being present in all places and at all times. This attribute suggests that God is not confined by space or time and is simultaneously everywhere.
Omnibenevolence
While not explicitly defined with an “omni-” prefix in the provided search results, omnibenevolence refers to God’s perfect goodness. In classical theism, God is described as a perfect being who is all-knowing and all-powerful. This attribute is central to the problem of evil, as it questions how a perfectly good God can allow suffering.
Divinity and Related Concepts
Divinity encompasses the quality or state of being divine, or a being with superhuman powers. It can also refer to the supreme being worshipped as the creator and ruler of the universe, such as God, Allah, or Yahweh.
Divine as an adjective can mean of the very best kind, or more relevantly, of, relating to, or being God. This includes characteristics like being heavenly, holy, sacred, godlike, and eternal.
Transcendence and immanence are key concepts in understanding God’s relationship to the world. Transcendence suggests God is distinct from and beyond the world, while immanence implies God is within the world. Classical theism often emphasizes God’s transcendence as the cause of the world, while the world exists as a temporal effect.
Reconciling the divine attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence with the existence of evil is a central challenge in theology and philosophy, often referred to as the problem of evil. This problem questions how an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God can permit suffering and wrongdoing in the world.
Several theological responses, known as theodicies, attempt to address this paradox:
The Free Will Defense: This argument suggests that moral evil is a consequence of human free will. For humans to have genuine freedom, they must be capable of choosing evil. A world with free beings, even with the possibility of evil, is considered better than a world of automatons who lack free will. This defense primarily addresses moral evil, with natural evil sometimes being linked to human actions or seen as a necessary part of a world that allows for free will.
The Soul-Making Theodicy: This perspective, influenced by thinkers like St. Irenaeus, views the world as an environment for human growth and maturation. Evil and suffering, while undesirable, are seen as necessary conditions for developing virtues such as courage, compassion, patience, and forgiveness. These virtues, it is argued, could not be developed in a world devoid of challenges and hardship.
The “Best of All Possible Worlds” Argument: Proposed by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, this view suggests that God, from an infinite number of possible worlds, chose to create the one that contains the greatest possible number of perfections. While this world contains evils, they are seen as necessary components that contribute to the overall richness and plenitude of the created order, making it the best possible world. This idea was famously satirized by Voltaire.
The Fall of Man: In the Augustinian tradition, evil is understood as a consequence of humanity’s original sin (Adam and Eve’s disobedience). Both moral and natural evils are seen as stemming from this initial act of rebellion against God.
Cognitive Distance: Another approach acknowledges that human understanding is limited and cannot fully grasp God’s reasons for permitting evil. It suggests that there may be justifications for evil that are beyond human comprehension.
These strategies are often supplemented by the belief in a life after death, where present suffering may be remedied, compensated for, or understood in a larger, eternal context.
EXISTENCE OF EVIL
Philosophical arguments against the existence of God based on evil, often termed the problem of evil, center on the apparent contradiction between the existence of evil and the attributes of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God.
The core of these arguments, famously articulated by Epicurus and later cited by David Hume, poses a dilemma:
If God is willing to prevent evil but is unable, then God is impotent.
If God is able to prevent evil but is unwilling, then God is malevolent.
If God is both able and willing, then evil should not exist.
Since evil does exist, this line of reasoning suggests that God, as traditionally conceived, does not exist.
This argument posits that if God were omnipotent, God could eliminate evil; if God were omniscient, God would know how to eliminate evil; and if God were perfectly good, God would desire to eliminate evil. The presence of evil, therefore, challenges the coherence of these divine attributes coexisting.
While some may find this argument conclusive for atheism, many thinkers suggest it is too simplistic. They argue that the existence of evil might not be logically incompatible with God’s attributes if, for instance, eliminating one evil might lead to a greater evil, or if the existence of a particular evil is necessary for a greater good. However, skeptics often use the reality of evil to argue that God’s existence is unlikely rather than impossible, or that it cancels out evidence for God’s existence.
The free will defense primarily addresses moral evil, which stems from human actions. However, it can be extended to account for natural evil in a few ways, though these connections are often considered less direct or more debated.
One approach suggests that natural evils are indirectly linked to human free will. For example, human greed and the exploitation of natural resources can exacerbate natural disasters or lead to environmental degradation, which in turn causes suffering. In this view, natural evil is a consequence of human moral choices.
Another perspective, as argued by Richard Swinburne, posits that natural evils can serve as a means for moral growth and character development. Natural events like fires or floods, while dangerous, can provide opportunities for humans to develop virtues such as courage, generosity, and self-sacrifice. This argument suggests that a world with natural laws that can cause harm is necessary for humans to learn and mature, and this learning process is facilitated by the exercise of free will in responding to these challenges.
However, it’s important to note that the free will defense is often seen as less effective in explaining natural evil that appears to have no direct link to human actions, such as earthquakes or diseases that strike without human provocation.
Several theodicies offer explanations for natural evil, attempting to reconcile its existence with a benevolent and omnipotent God.
The Augustinian Tradition
This approach, heavily influenced by St. Augustine, views natural evil as a consequence of the Fall of Adam and Eve. Natural disasters, diseases, and other calamities are seen as either direct punishments for sin or the result of the natural order being disrupted by moral evil. For instance, human greed and exploitation of resources could lead to ecological imbalances that manifest as natural disasters.
The Irenaean Tradition (Soul-Making Theodicy)
In contrast, the Irenaean view, often referred to as the soul-making theodicy, posits that the world, with its mixture of good and evil, is an environment designed for human growth and moral development. Natural evils, while harsh, can serve as catalysts for cultivating virtues such as courage, generosity, and self-sacrifice. This perspective suggests that a world with natural laws capable of causing harm is necessary for humans to mature and develop the character God intends for them.
The “Best of All Possible Worlds”
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz proposed that God, in his infinite wisdom, chose to create the “best of all possible worlds.” This world, while containing moral and natural evils, is considered the optimal creation because it possesses the greatest variety and plenitude of perfections. In this view, the evils present are necessary components that contribute to the overall richness and goodness of the whole, even if they appear negative in isolation.
Regularities of Nature
Richard Swinburne argues that the consistent natural laws governing the universe, which can lead to natural evils, are essential for both moral and intellectual development. These regularities allow humans to learn, plan, and develop virtues by confronting challenges and dangers, and by understanding cause and effect.
Life After Death
Many theodicies are supplemented by the belief in an afterlife. The hardships and suffering caused by natural evil in this life are seen as temporary and insignificant compared to the eternal rewards in heaven. This future perspective offers a way to understand how God can bring good out of evil and prepare individuals for a higher existence.
The concept of “soul-making” directly addresses natural evil by viewing the world as an environment for human growth and moral development. This perspective, often associated with the Irenaean tradition, suggests that natural evils, such as diseases or natural disasters, are not necessarily punishments but rather challenges that foster the development of virtues like courage, generosity, and self-sacrifice.
In this view, the existence of natural laws that can cause harm is considered necessary for humans to mature and develop the character God intends for them. By confronting and responding to these hardships, individuals can learn, grow, and ultimately achieve spiritual perfection. This contrasts with the Augustinian tradition, which tends to see natural evil as a consequence of human sin.
A theodicy is an attempt to justify God’s goodness and omnipotence in the face of evil, aiming to explain why God permits it. In contrast, a defense is a more limited argument that seeks only to demonstrate that the existence of some evil is logically compatible with God’s attributes, without necessarily explaining God’s specific purposes.
Theodicies offer comprehensive accounts of God’s reasons for allowing evil, such as the Augustinian view that evil stems from the Fall of Adam and Eve, or the Irenaean view that evil is necessary for soul-making and human development. Defenses, on the other hand, might argue that free will necessitates the possibility of evil or that natural evils serve as opportunities for moral and intellectual growth, without claiming to know God’s ultimate plan.
The problem of evil arises from the apparent contradiction between the existence of evil and the attributes of God, specifically that God is omnipotent, perfectly good, and that evil exists. This philosophical and theological dilemma questions how an all-powerful and all-good deity could permit the existence of suffering and wrongdoing in the world.
The problem encompasses both moral evil, caused by human actions, and natural evil, stemming from natural phenomena like diseases or disasters. A classic formulation, attributed to Epicurus, asks: If God is willing but unable to prevent evil, he is impotent; if able but unwilling, he is malevolent; if both able and willing, why does evil exist?
While some use this problem as an argument for atheism, many thinkers find it too simplistic. They suggest that eliminating one evil might cause another, or that certain evils may be outweighed by greater goods. Theistic responses generally fall into two categories: theodicies, which attempt to explain why God permits evil, and defenses, which aim to show that the existence of evil is logically compatible with God’s attributes.
Philosophers respond to the problem of evil through two main strategies: theodicies and defenses.
Theodicies
A theodicy attempts to justify God’s goodness and omnipotence by explaining why God permits evil. Key approaches include:
Augustinian Tradition: This view, stemming from St. Augustine, sees all evil (moral and natural) as a consequence of the Fall of Adam and Eve. Natural evils might be punishments or results of human sin disrupting the natural order.
Irenaean Tradition: This perspective, influenced by St. Irenaeus, views the world as an environment for human growth and development. Evil is seen as a necessary part of this process, allowing humans to mature towards perfection.
Leibnizian View: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz argued that this is the “best of all possible worlds,” suggesting that the variety and richness of existence, even with its evils, represent the greatest possible perfections God could create.
Defenses
A defense is a more limited argument that seeks to show that the existence of evil is logically compatible with God’s attributes, without necessarily explaining God’s specific reasons.
Common Strategies
Several arguments are employed in both theodicies and defenses:
Free Will: This argument posits that moral evil is a consequence of human freedom. A world with free beings, capable of choosing evil, is considered better than a world of automata.
Soul-Making: Natural evils can provide opportunities for moral and intellectual development, fostering virtues like courage and compassion. These challenges help humans mature and learn.
Life After Death: The hardships of this life are seen as preparation for a better afterlife, where the point of suffering and God’s justice will be made clear.
Cognitive Distance: This approach emphasizes the gap between human understanding and God’s will, suggesting that humans cannot fully comprehend God’s reasons for permitting evil.
Philosophers distinguish between two main formulations of the problem of evil: the logical and the evidential.
The Logical Problem of Evil
This formulation argues that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good God. The argument, often attributed to Epicurus, states:
If God is willing but unable to prevent evil, he is impotent.
If God is able but unwilling to prevent evil, he is malevolent.
If God is both able and willing to prevent evil, then evil should not exist.
Since evil exists, God cannot be both omnipotent and perfectly good.
This version suggests a direct contradiction, implying that if evil exists, then God, as traditionally defined, cannot.
The Evidential Problem of Evil
This formulation contends that the sheer amount and types of evil in the world provide strong evidence against God’s existence, even if not a strict logical contradiction. It argues that while a perfectly good and powerful God might permit some evil, the vast quantity and horrific nature of suffering (like the Holocaust or natural disasters) make it highly improbable that such a God exists.
Responses
Philosophers respond to these problems with:
Theodicies: These attempt to justify God’s ways by explaining why God permits evil, often citing free will, soul-making, or the greater goods that evil might entail.
Defenses: These aim to show that the existence of evil is logically compatible with God’s attributes, without necessarily explaining God’s specific reasons.
Through justification and sanctification—humans can recover their relationship with God and regain the energy to walk by faith and not by sight.