“Evil is Nothing” Her argument of Evil is Nothing is very simple. She begins by speaking with Boethius and getting at the definition of what is good and how that is related to God. She starts out by stating that they agree on the fact of God. Then they come to the agreement that God is the good itself. They then state that there is nothing that can go against God and still have power because God is all-powerful and all good. Lady Philosophy then says, “No one could doubt that God is omnipotent,” and Boethius responds by saying no one in their right mind could deny it. And she says that God can also do evil, which Boethius immediately states “No.” After that remark she goes on to make her argument by stating that evil must be nothing because God can do anything but God can not do evil so therefore there is no such thing as evil. In this discussion, Lady Philosophy states that because God can do anything and that God cannot do evil then evil is nothing. Her statement is sound if you believe the statements that they both agreed on. First they said yes there is a God and yes God is good. They then agree on their good God being omnipotent, meaning that their God can do anything. Lady Philosophy then brings up her big argument. She says that God can do anything in the world that he wants to, anything at all, and that he is good. But she also says that God can do evil. This is usually a perspective that humans in general do not look at. We see God as being the good of the world and something to look up to. Her idea of God doing evil is rejected by Boetheius. This meaning that if he believes in evil then he cannot believe in a God that is all-powerful and cannot do good. Therefore Boethius contradicts himself, and Lady Philosophy is found to be correct. However, I agree with this idea and that her statement is sound. However, unlike Boethius I don’t believe that God cannot do evil. If God is all powerful then of course he can do evil, rather he chooses not to, and because of this God is represented as only allowed to do good. But how can anything that is as powerful as that not be able to do something horrible.
In understanding God as the greatest good, and of all things working towards good, it would be easier for Roland to find hope to carry on in battle. In addition, the punishment of Ganelon’s treason would also be assured in a larger sense, as evil is its own punishment. Finally, the understanding of all Fortune as working towards the good would enable Roland to see the good that could later be brought out of the tragedy of the rear guard. As a whole, the agreement of the philosophy of Boethius’ with the actions of Roland are clear, and the work is applicable in its arguments to the code of knighthood as well as on an individual
In the story "Antaeus," by Borden Deal, the main character T.J has three capabilities that make him different from his friends. First of all, T.J. is a very intelligent boy. His new city companions did not maintain the wisdom T.J. has about the world and how to deal with people around. T. J. is also a receptive boy, a soft-spoken person who feels an attachment to the land. Finally, T.J. is a tenacious boy who sticks to his plans once he starts it and who would reject to the idea about destroying what he has created.
I was given the task to make a decision concerning the confession of Alexandros of Nicomedia regarding his Monophysite beliefs. After carefully studying Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, and closely analyzing his arguments, I was able to come to a conclusion. Boethius would argue that the correct thing to do is punish Alexandros to push him to reform himself rather than just senseless torture, given that wicked men technically do not exist, wicked men are already punishing themselves and wicked man can reform themselves by suing the right punishment.
Either element of the conclusion is damaging to the traditional understanding of a Judeo-Christian God. It seems simple enough. A benevolent Creator appears incompatible with what we understand to be the existence of evil. Evil is opposed to God’s will, eventually cumulating in the crucifixion of God’s son, Jesus. One must then wonder how an all-loving and all-powerful God would allow such pain to occur to both his creation and Jesus. A perfect God’s world should be similarly perfect. The world is not perfect so it seems that God must not be all-loving or He must not be all-powerful. Rejecting the existence of evil, immediately rejects too much of the Judeo-Christian tradition to be considered, though some philosophers have considered it.
The opening question in “On Free Choice of the Will” is “Isn’t God the cause of evil?” (Augustine, 1). Evodius examines into this question as opposed to “what is the cause of all evil?” because God is the creator of people—in which sinning comes from. From the premise, which states that: 1) God created everything; 2) God allows for the existence of evil, people do evil and sin, we can conclude that “God is the cause of all evil” because he created everything and everything that has form comes from God:
There is evil. 3. So, God does not exist”. Since there is evil, then that means God does not exist. So there is no loving and powerful God. However, if there is a God then he is not all loving and powerful. Daniel Howard-Snyder states in his article “God, Evil, And Suffering,”: “We would have to say God lacks power and knowledge to such an extent that He can 't prevent evil. And there lies the trouble. For how could God have enough power and knowledge to create and sustain the physical universe if He can 't even prevent evil? How could He be the providential governor of the world if He is unable to do what even we frequently do, namely prevent evil?” (5). This statement argues that God is not all powerful because he is unable to prevent evil in the world. Daniel Howard-Snyder then argues that: “Would a perfectly good being always prevent evil as far as he can? Suppose he had a reason to permit evil, a reason that was compatible with his never doing wrong and his being perfect in love, what I 'll call a justifying reason. For example, suppose that if he prevented evil completely, then we would miss out on a greater good, a good whose goodness was so great that it far surpassed the badness of evil. In that case, he might not prevent evil as far as he can, for he would have a justifying reason to permit it” (5). Even if God had a reason to allow evil, he who is all loving and powerful would want the least amount of people to suffer and feel pain. Since God knows
The Consolation of Philosophy is written by Boethius while in prison awaiting for his execution. It starts out with Boethius talking to lady philosophy and she starts to tell him about the philosophical view on Christianity. She begins by explaining that the vagaries of Fortune visit everyone and she has came there to "cure" him of all his suffering and sickness he is feeling through this troubling time. Boethius's view is more of a philosophical point of view meaning that he uses reasoning and experience to base his view of God. He doesn’t understand why bad things happen to good people and why good things happen to bad people. Boethius had a hard time understanding that God would allow good people to have a troubling life. Boethius has a
...mpossibility for an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good God to exist in a universe where evil exists. The qualities in question are categorical, omnipotence, omniscience and being perfectly good, and the only way to account for the existence of evil is to limit in some way one of the categorical characteristics. What this does is change the quality of omnipotence to the lesser quality of extremely powerful. And in admitting any restrictions to any of the classical attributes of God is to admit that the logical impossibility is in fact valid. What a person needs to do is examine the problem objectively first, and only after reaching their objective conclusion can they then apply it to their religious beliefs.
Philosophers of the Medieval period struggled with the problem of evil - specifically, the existence of evil brought a question to the fore: if the world was created by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, then how was it that evil existed? To further complicate the matter, a second question branched off of the first as individuals pondered over whether or not God was ultimately the cause of evil. If God created everything, and evil exists as part of everything, then God, logically, had created evil. But this presented yet another issue, in that if God had knowingly created evil, then he could not truly be all-good. And it is these concerns that philosophers addressed.
One of the most commonly debated matters for both theism and atheism is the logical problem of evil. Atheists dispute that the presence of evil in this world and the belief in an all knowing, good and powerful God is a contradiction and is logically inconsistent. If God were omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent he would be able to prevent or eliminate evil and suffering; and because he is rational he would eliminate and prevent evil. It is obvious that evil exists in this world. A world that has both evil and God is logically impossible therefore, God does not exist.
...d appear to be unrestrained and unpunished because their wickedness and the lack of true happiness that is associated with it is their punishment (Consolation of Philosophy 94). To both Augustine and Boethius, God is completely good and sovereign. However, He allows men free will and the punishment or rewards that come with these free decisions.
Could anyone live with knowing his or her fate? Well that is precisely what is happening to Oedipus, King Laius, and Jocasta in the story of Oedipus Rex. These three people are caught in the grasp of fate and they don’t have a choice but to go along with the story. In Oedipus Rex by Sophocles the plot, setting, characters, foreshadowing, irony, and themes rely on one thing…fate.
This analysis of Oedipus’s character shows how Oedipus, the protagonist and the antagonist against himself, dealt with unfortunate situations which sealed his fate. Oedipus was a strange round character that was really interesting and mysterious. Oedipus’s life was a good example of a true Greek tragedy; he worked himself up to be a great king and ultimately in the end he died with only his perception on life. Oedipus was once a man of power who falls impoverished. He goes from having much respect in his great position to being impure, blind, and expelled from the land that he once ruled.
At first, we should have a clear definition about god if we want to figure about whether the fact of evil count against the proposition that god exist. From the theory of Anselm and Aquinas, God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. God is the cause of being, and goodness, and of every perfection in all existing things (Fieser and Pojman, 205). In conclusion, god is perfect, all-good, omniscient, and omnipotent. If god is like Anselm and Aquinas described, the fact of evil is a good argument to count against the proposition that god exist. We can see evil in reality, but no one has ever seen god in reality. God did not create a world without evil, and god did not extinguish evil.
God is good and evil is rampant; both of these are true. Theodicy questions how both statements are true; there couldn’t be a just God and evil in the same world. My logic is that since we know what good and evil is, that proves the existence of God. God created an instinctive sense of right and wrong in our minds from our birth that goes deep into our nature as humans. C.S. Lewis calls this the “Law of Human Nature” since, like gravity, “the subject is governed by the law.” So I believe that God exists, and evil is a result of our free will which is given to us by God.