The problem of evil or the absence of a God that is good has plauged mankind for as long as history can

recall. Perhaps problem isn't the correct word though, because problems tend to have solutions. et, this issue remains ultimately unresolved. !early all the great philosophers of old have written upon this issue, including "ugistine, "#uinas, $ant, and a multitude of others. %n order to tackle this issue from a systematic standpoint, % will organi&e my paper accordingly. 'eginning with an overview of several writers, % will then attempt to prove or re(ect their thoughts or ideas by using the teachings of contrasting philosophers. !e)t % will introduce my view of the argument and provide sources who come to my defense. "fter that, % will summari&e all of my sources in order to reiterate the topic at hand. *asty, % will conclude my paper with a resolution of the argument. %t is important to note that the God upon which % am writing % believe to be wholly good, wholly powerful, wholly (ust, and wholly loving.

+.,. *ewis was man who was all too familiar with physical pain and emotional suffering. "fter losing his wife to a punishing battle with cancer in the adolescence of their marriage, *ewis was tormented with heartache and loneliness. -.here is God/ . . . Go to him when your need is desperate, when all other help is vain, and what do you find/ " door slammed in your face0*ewis, 12. %t appears reasonable to shake one's fist at God or some divine power for being absent in a desparate time of need. 'ut at what point does the conclusion become one that states God is not good or even neutral, but is in fact evil/ "t what point did God go from being good or neutral to flat out evil/ There must be an unchanging standard of good3evil and right3wrong in order to make such a claim. .as 4e the cause for *ewis' suffering, or was it the permission of this tragedy to befall him that turned the "lmighty into a villain/ %n order to answer this, it is imperative to step back and to look to the origins of things.

*et us begin with Thomas "#uinas' definition of God5 -That than which nothing greater can be thought.- .hat is greatness/ Greatness is a value (udgment that implies that something has much worth. "ccording to "#uinas' definition, God is therefore the most valuable essence imaginable. These words -value- and -greatness- are powerful. That which a logical man deems valuable or great is that which is significant to his betterment. -%f God were good, 4e would wish to make 4is creatures perfectly happy, and if God were almighty 4e would be able to do what 4e wished. 'ut the creatures are not happy. Therefore God either lacks goodness, or power, or both- 0*ewis, 612. %t is important to note that happiness is a choice, one which humans do have the ability to access. as well as any other emotion. ,cripture claims that -with God, all things are possible- 07atthew 685912. *ewis bolstered that statement by e)plaining the words -ominpotence- and -impossible.- 4e stated that the word -impossible- usually follows an implied and suppressed clause before it that includes the word -unless.- :or e)ample, *ewis used the metaphor of being landlocked by buildings and being unable to see the street from a low floor. Unless he moves to a higher room in order to see over the buildings in his way, it would be -impossible- for him to see the street. 4e calls the -absolutely impossible- the -intrinsically impossible- because not even a statement beginning with -unless...- would be able to give it any possibility. %n -The Problem of ;vil,- +.,. *ewis e)plains5 -4is <mnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. ou may attribute miracles to 4im, but not nonsense. This is no limit too 4is power. %f you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God5 meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly ac#uire meaning simply because we prefi) to them the two other words 'God can.' %t remains true that all things are possible with God5 the intrinsic

impossibilities are not things but nonentities. %t is no more possible for God than for the weakest of 4is creatures to carry out both of two mutually e)clusive alternatives= not because 4is power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God- 0*ewis, 612.

,cripture is clear that the +reator gave 4is creation free will and the absolute ability to make decisions for himself. %t is therefore implied that there are things, items, and directions to choose between. %n the Garden of ;den, it was re#uested of "dam and ;ve to do one thing, obey their +reator. 'ecause of the nature of free will, "dam and ;ve had the ability to do (ust that or to instead disobey. %t is obvious what they chose due to the position we are in now, but this is no fault of God. 4e can know something will occur without commanding or demanding that it happens. That is the difference between certainty and necessity. God is able to create something else to be the cause or access to the evil without being the cause 4imself, much like a gunshmith can manufacturer a firearm all the while knowing the capacity to commit the crime is possible. 'ecause the gunsmith does not pull the trigger and commit the crime, he can absolve himself from the blame of that evil. God is able to do the same thing because 4e causes no one to do evil, but all the while knows evil can be committed. *et no one say when he is tempted, % am being tempted by God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one 0>ames 656? ;,@2. *ike *ewis wrote, either in all points we are free to do as we please as is intrinsically possible, or we were not given free will to begin with. Therefore, they were free to disobey their +reator. 'ecause of "#uinas, we see that God is good and therefore 4is commandments or re#uests are also good. God could not be bad at any point because that which is good is good...and so on. Therefore, to not comply with God's re#uest is an act that is absent of the good. That does not make it inherently bad, but that does ensure that it is not good. This is different than showing insubordination to a teacher in a

classroom. .hile it is frowned upon and genuinely unacceptable to disobey an authority figure, that entity and his or her words, actions, or re#uests carry no more goodness than your own. " reason why people are so torn up between good and evil is because they incorrectly view themselves as an ade#uate measure of the good. People, when looking to add validity to their own good, compare themselves to similar creatures in the same boat 0*ewis, A92. %t is fairly easy for one to assume he is good because he did not play a role in the e)ecutions of millions of >ews. 'y that same measure, no one stutters to say the holocaust was abhorrent. 'ut people step back at the notion that stealing office supplies from their place of employment or cheating on a test or e)am is on the same level as genocide. Bemember, it is not the degree of evil that makes one act more or less evil than another, but it is the fact that evil is evil and is therefore not good.