The Existence of God

One of the great philosophical questions is whether or not God exists. There are many arguments used to "prove" one side or the other. For example, Thomas Aquinas, the thirteenth-century theologian developed five proofs of the existence of God which include both the Cosmological Argument and the Best Explanation Design Argument. In the Cosmological Argument, he asserts that since there must have been a time when nothing existed, and since now physical things exist, then there must be some non-physical being that brought things into existence. This being must be God. As for the Best Explanation Design Argument, Aquinas posits that the universe appears to have been designed and since nothing we know of that appears to be designed unless it is designed. Therefore, the universe must have been designed by a super-natural being. This super-natural being is God (Dawkins, 100)

On the other hand, there are also a number of philosophical views that attempt to disprove the existence of God. Perhaps one of the greatest opposing arguments for the existence of God is the problem of evil. Using a traditional definition of God as an all-powerful, all-knowing and wholly good being, the argument states that God cannot and must not exist because evil exists in the amount of suffering all over the world. A twist on the problem of evil is the problem of unnecessary suffering. An example of this is the following:

If Bambi the deer unnecessarily suffers from a forest fire, does that disprove the existence of God?

The premise is that God would not allow Bambi to suffer for no reason.

From an atheist's point of view, problems of evil and unnecessary suffering satisfy the criteria for disproving the existence of God. If God exists, the theory goes He must only have limited power because God would want to eliminate evil. Since evil exists, God must not have enough power to eliminate evil. Another possibility is that God is omnipotent, but not wholly good because if He is powerful enough to eliminate all evil yet evil still exists, God must not be good.

I would counter that even though God wants to create a perfect world, He wants one where human beings possess freewill and virtue. Further, it would be contradictory to create such a world without evil and suffering. Freewill is a necessary ingredient in the perfect world and it would be contradictory for God to give human beings freewill and yet guarantee that they never use the freewill to harm themselves and others. Thus, there is likely to be evil and suffering in the world. Thus, in creating people, God wanted us to have freewill, which involves being free to act wrongly as well as to act rightly. Therefore, it would be contradictory for God to give us freewill, but at the same time, control what we choose to do with that privilege.

There is much evil that is not inflicted by man. Natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina or the recent Japanese tsunami, cause great destruction, but there is nothing that we have done that causes them and there is often nothing that we could have done to prevent them. However, there are a number of character traits that are valuable only if evil and suffering exist. Compassion, for instance, is of great value, but can only exist if there is suffering. Bravery, too, is a virtue, but only if we sometimes face danger. Self-sacrifice is another great good, but can only exist if there is inter-dependence, if some people find themselves in situations where they need help from others. God created us in such a way that we would depend upon one another, that we would be drawn together to form a community. If each of us were self-sufficient, safe from suffering, then the great goods that come from this would not have been possible. Therefore, I believe that the customary virtues such as courage or generosity cannot exist or be defined without the presence of evil or suffering. Virtues, such as generosity and courage, are needed in the perfect world (especially if human beings have free will) and we should have the opportunity to exercise these virtues. We could not define these virtues unless there was also evil and suffering, and we could not exhibit these virtues unless there was also the possibility of evil or suffering. Imagine someone being courageous where there is no danger, or generous where everyone has plenty. The conclusion is that suffering is necessary even in the perfect world.

However, virtues and freewill do not sufficiently cover the case of unnecessary suffering that may not serve any purpose. In the example provided, what purpose is served by Bambi suffering in a forest fire? Similarly, what cause could there be to justify this? I believe that in addition to the free will defense to the Problem of Evil that a combination