Many religions reveal that God is perfect: all-knowing, all-amazing, and helpful. Why do horrible things happen at this time? It is obviously obvious that there is no greater obstacle to trust than that of the devious and enduring truth about the planet. Moreover, the disappointment is even greater today when improbable desires for well-being and success are encouraged by the lessons of a large number of religious educators. Why does an honest God allow his animals, and even his children, to suffer? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essayThe problem of evil, an issue in religious philosophy, and the logic of religion that emerges for any view attesting to the three accompanying recommendations: God is omnipotent, God is magnificently great, and wickedness exists. The problem of evil emerges in light of the fact that the three accompanying statements contain a contradictory set: God is omnipotent (meaning there are no restrictions on what God can do) God is all good (great in the feeling of being effectively contradicted) to evil)Evil comes outOmnipotenceOmnipotence means having unlimited power and the ability to do everything. Omnipotence ultimately derives from the Latin prefix Omni-, meaning "all", and the word powerful, meaning "power". We can say that an all-powerful corpse does everything through all power. The prefix Omni- also gave us similar words such as omniscient (meaning "all-knowing"). Who knows, everything is omniscient. An omniscient person knows everything, including the past, present and future. God can be omniscient because he knows everything. To begin, it is essential to recognize two kinds of evils: moral evils and natural evils. Moral evil results from the activities of free animals. Murders, assaults and robberies are precedents. Natural evil results from common procedures, for example, earthquakes and floods. Obviously, from time to time the two mix, for example when floods result in loss of life due to lack of common sense or terrible structural development. It is useful to distinguish two types of philosophical aspect of the problem of evil. The first is the logical challenge to belief in God. This challenge asserts that it is irrational and therefore impossible to believe in the existence of a good and powerful God on the basis of the existence of evil in the world. The Argument from Evil If there is a completely good being, he tries to prevent all evil. If there is an all-powerful being, he succeeds in doing whatever he tries to do. Therefore: if there is a completely good and all-powerful being, then all evil is prevented (i.e. there is no evil). Not all evils are prevented (that is, there are evils). Thus: there is no such thing as being entirely good and all-powerful. a decent and amazing God exists in a similar reality, for such a God could and would insidiously devastate. Again, the test of evidence demonstrates that while it is objectively conceivable to accept that such a God exists, it is very impossible or far-fetched that he would do so. We have proof of so much seemingly idiotic diabolism and such terrible power. For what legitimate reason would a decent and amazing God allow the amount and kinds of wickedness we see around us. To solve the problem, we must reject the term that God is totally good or accept the term that God is all-powerful. to destroy evils. But the term we rejected is not the solution. Because allreligious people such as Muslims, Hindus and Christians believe in God and love God. They believe that only God can destroy all evils and that He is the all-powerful being. At this point, He's smart. Is it correct to say that he is both able and willing? So where does insight come from? At the point when the skeptic challenges trust in God on the basis of the consistent question of malevolence, he proposes that it is absurd or reasonably difficult to take stock of the presence of both a decent and utterly incredible God and about the detestable and enduring truth. Such a God would under no circumstances allow deviousness to exist. Although most agree that trust in a decent and amazing God is reasonably conceivable, in any case many battles show that the presence of such a God is far-fetched. because of the idea of ​​malice that we find on the planet around us. They infer that if such a God existed, it would be very unlikely that He would allow the scale and power of evil that we find in our reality. Evil, which is most of the time by all accounts of such a useless nature. This accusation should not be taken lightly, as much of our universe has evidence of a trick of such a shocking nature, that it is embarrassing from time to time. to understand what imaginable reason it could serve. In any case, as problematic as this part of the question of malice is, careful reasoning will demonstrate that there are sensible reactions to this test. Certainly, it is difficult for us to understand why God would allow certain things to happen. In any case, the fact that we think it is difficult to imagine the reasons God might have for permitting them does not imply that such reasons do not exist. It is entirely conceivable that such reasons are beyond our current knowledge, but also our current ability to understand them. A child generally does not understand the reasons behind everything his father allows or does not allow him to do. It would be impossible for us to hope to see the majority of God's explanations behind everything He does. We don't completely understand many things about the world we live in – what lies behind the power of gravity, for example, or the precise capacity of subatomic particles. However, we trust these physical substances. Skeptical theism defends the problem of evil by asserting that God allows an insidiousness to occur in order to thwart a greater insidiousness or to strengthen a response that will bring about a greater good. Thus, an assault or murder against an honest boy is protected as having a divine motivation that an individual may not understand, but which may lead to a less hateful or greater good. This is called a distrustful belief in higher powers, on the grounds that this assertion is intended to fuel self-doubt, either by attempting to justify God's hidden thought processes or by striving to clarify them as a restriction of the human capacity to know. Resistance to the most remarkable benefits is all the more regularly challenged in religious examinations due to the evidential form of the evil question, while the protection of unbridled choice is usually discussed with regard to the sane version. Most scholars condemn cautious belief in the barrier of higher powers because it "depreciates affliction" and ignores why God has a big heart and should have the ability to end all misery and against any malice, instead of engaging in an exercise of caution. control..