Is the Existence of Evil Compatible with the Existence of God?

"Is the Existence of Evil incompatible with the existence of God?"

"Without darkness there can be no light (Shestov)."

This quote says a lot about our world as we know it. To truly know something we must also know it's opposite. We would not know silent if there was not sound. There would be no young if we did not know old. So how could we believe that there is a good without an evil? To believe in the existence of a greatest good, which we call God, there must also be exist a source of evil as it's opposite. The two then, not only can, but must coexist.

The problem, or question rather, of evil has forever been existent and will inevitably remain to be. However, by taking a logical approach we can proceed to make an opinion about this question of the presence of, or lack of, evil. First we must start by defining the question at hand. Ð''Is the Existence of Evil incompatible with the existence of God?' According to the American Heritage Dictionary God is a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. Evil on the other hand is a bit more complicated. It is defined as 1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: and 2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful. The problem here lies in the question of who decides what is considered to be evil. Finally the definition of incompatible is: Incapable of associating or blending or of being associated or blended because of disharmony, incongruity, or antagonism. So, essentially the question we are asking, by definition is Ð''can an all knowing, good being, be associated with something that is morally bad or wrong?'

We need to then reduce the definition of evil. Natural evil is only evil as people define evil. A volcano that erupts and takes life is evil to humans because it harms human life and our human creations. To the world as a whole, as a system of life, this eruption is quite insignificant, or alternately good, even natural for the environment. Therefore, I have to come to the conclusion that natural evil is only evil in the eye of the beholder, and therefore, it does not truly exist anywhere other than in the minds of people. So we can eliminate the problem of natural evil from here on out.

To further reduce the definition of evil, the topic of good harm, or reasonable risk, needs to be addressed. As pointed out in Stump's article, the issue of medicine can be categorized in this way. A patient may suffer when taking medication, and plea for it to be discontinued, but the doctor keeps administering the drug not because he is evil but because he is looking out for the best interest of the patient which is ultimately good. The patient suffers and is definitely harmed but for a greater purpose, to continue living. Is this really an evil then? No. However, this brings up a new idea. How do we know that our suffering in general is not just part of God's larger plan for us? We do not know; and it very well may be just that. Suffering may be a punishment or it may even be there to make us stronger. Who are we to make this decision (Stump, 342)?

In contrast however moral evil, which may be differently defined from evil in general by saying it is a willed wrong, or intent to harm. This in fact would be evil. For example, a child molester, or any acts of violence against children for that matter, would be a moral evil. What could a child have done to be punished like in that way or what could molestation possibly prepare them for in the rest of their life? These are the questions that are the hardest for us to understand