The Nature of the Good, Evil and Omnipotence of God

Introduction

There are three proportions in the understanding of the nature of the supernatural beings. The three stand points including the fact that God can be said to be omnipotent to mean, all powerful, and is good God, in contrast to the fact that evil is bad, has been a major point of controversy. Empirically, the three cannot exist in the same circumstance, that is, only two can be held to be true at any given time.

From Popova’s published book, Through Alien Eyes, the following are some of the facts which have been proposed to ascertain the fact that the three prepositions cannot hold at a go. First and fore most is the fact that evil is an illusion (Mackie) #1. The break even analysis of the evil and the good nature of God have not yet been well stated. Evil can sometimes be seen as partial good which does not necessarily mean that it always opposes the good. On the same note, evil is seen as the privation of the good which is an attribute of God. Then, following the fact that the three cannot be manifested in the same encounter, it would be true to propose that evil does not really exist and thus is an illusion (Popova).

The other concept which we can make out from the discussion is that evil and good is part and parcel of one another. In the event that one talks of good as being true, then it follows that the person holding such a preposition acknowledges that evil is true and exists. This implies that the omnipotent nature of God is disputed (Hull). This is because the three prepositions cannot all be held to be true at the same time. This implies that such a person would limit the omnipotence nature of God. The person would be in other words acknowledging that God has limited powers and thus is not all that powerful (Mackie)

Similarly, it has been proposed that evils and good are the causal agents of one another. If the omnipotent God was able to make good things, then evil must have been a condition achieved, and to make the good (Hull). This is confirmed by the statement that the universe cannot exist without evil. Thus this means that evil and good intertwine in the universally accepted society, to make life even better and bearable. Therefore, evil is a way to the achievement of good.

The human conscience is the sole agent responsible for the development and the maintenance of evil (Mackie). The proponents of this view also hold to the fact that God who is considered to be good gave man the free will to make the right or wrong decisions. And it is the free well of man to be able to do evil. In this case, god is alienated from the evil is considered fully holly.

In other cases, the fact of calling another person or object bad which in other words means evil is subjective. This is because they are subjected to personal and often prejudiced opinions (McCabe). Notably, they are marked as evil because they do not measure up to what they are expected to be by other people. In contrast, the people who mark them to be evil are also marked as evil by others. This makes the whole idea of the argument of the nature of the evil, good and Omnipotence of God to be questionable.

From the JL Mackie there is a preposition that god is  not omnipotent and there fore it is this concept that man thing that they are not possibly be controlled by  God. That is god is not in the control of the free action of man and that he always distances himself from controlling them, this is however fallacious and misconceived idea because McCabe underscores the fact that there is God who is almighty and he is in charge of everything, this therefore brings into focus the fact that it not obvious to deny the right of ownership or place some stringent conditions to the owner of a property

There is then the proposition that evil is part and parcel of the universe has it helps to determine the level of good in the society. This has been the contradiction of most people, especially those that are aware of the provision of divine provisions of the bible. There is also the fact that evil does not self impose and therefore it is brought about by some agents who are outside the individual but they simply results from ones own self. God is seen as the sole maker of all things that are in the universe and therefore his control to the same things he created cannot be wished away as some proponents of the same are advocating. (The Meditative Perspective)

The fact that sin is in the world as a result of god is unfounded because, God is not sinful hence there is no point to claim that God can allow sin to engulf human race.  For human race to have sin is only optional by not true that they are doing it because God has permitted them to perform the sin , this assertion that human beings must sin just because god is also sinning is not the case there is also the concept of freedom that is human being sin in order to have freedom, that is  not true because sin cannot in any case bring freedom to them, it is there fore imperative for human  beings to underscore the fact that sin does  not liberates (Popova), and the is no time in the history that sin would set people free in any part of the universe

God cannot therefore leads someone to doing good things especially after one has chosen the path of doing evil, evil deed are therefore not the solution or rather, the requirement of good things from God (Popova). This simply mean that for one to able to get good things from  God it is necessary to be good, this will enable people to see  that even god exist and he always want things that are good to happen to  people

It is evident that as long as human beings exist it implies that they were as a result of creation by somebody else, this simply mean that as much as human being want to dispute God existence and to long run associate Him with evil (kelly), then it becomes very unfortunate simply because out of no form there can never exist anything. It this assumption that some people assume that they are in apposition to exist without god

Conclusion

In the text that we have explored there exist a controversy between the perceptions that that for a complete society there must be some form of evil. That God is not in control of that he created and that God is evil. The perception that God is evil and therefore human beings should be evil is not correct. People cannot be evildoers and still expect some good thing from God, the existence of man is itself manifestation that there is God. This god cannot be denied the control of all that he created; therefore this paper has explored the facts and misconception of the two scenarios. Evil and the nature of God.