A Question of Evil
An analytical essay
Presented to Prof. Lori Alward
On this, the 14th day of September, 1998
By Jared Earles

A timeless philosophical question is the question of evil. There is a specific contradiction between the benevolence of God and the existence of evil. This essay will fully explain this contradiction, then offer a counter-argument, and attempt to prove its viability.
	I will begin by defining several important terms. Omniscient refers to an all-knowing being, particularly of past and future events. Omnipotent refers to an all-powerful being, capable of willing any fathomable or unfathomable situation into reality. Omnibenevolence is ascribed to a being which is all loving and wishes good on all. Finally, evil is harmful action which is the opposite of good.
	The "problem of evil" arises in the contradiction between omnibenevolence and the existence of evil. If God truly loved humankind, then evil would not plague us. Furthermore, our struggle with evil does not exist because God does not know evil exists; he is omniscient. Evil also does not exist because God is unable to stop it; he is omnipotent. Thus, God, an infinitely kind and loving being allows evil to exist. Evil thus is the opposite of love and kindness, thus 
making God an inherent contradiction.
	The solution is predicated on the idea that a forced decision is meaningless. If we are unable to make individual decisions, we are nothing more than puppets in the hand of our master. Thus, I argue that God grants each individual free will. Free will is the ability to make decisions free of coercion. Thomas Jefferson agrees "the God who gave us life gave us liberty at 
the same time." If God presents us with good and evil, yet forces us to only choose good, then an evil has occurred. Coercion, in itself, is evil. Thus a God which does not allow evil would be an inherent contradiction. From this, I suggest a new argument of the following form:
1.  God is omniscient.
2.  God is omnipotent.
3.  God is omnibenevolent.
4.  God grants humankind free will.
5.  Evil exists.

	In order to prove that the new fourth point is both valid and sound, I must first prove that it is consistent with the others, then prove that it is inherently a true premise. Initially, there is no direct conflict between premise one (P1) and premise four (P4). Yet, P1 implies that God knows with absolute certainty all of our future actions. Furthermore, P1 implies that God's knowledge is always correct. Thus, if X is posed a choice between A and B, God knows X's decision before X makes it. Therefore, by virtue of God's perfection, X must choose what God already knows. So, if God knows that X will choose A, then X has no choice but to choose A. X can not possibly choose B, as that would contradict God's omniscience. Hence, P4 contradicts P1.
	Additionally, the aforementioned conclusion contradicts premise two (P2). If God truly is omnipotent, then He should be able to endow humankind with free will. Given the previous conclusion (P4 contradicts P1) P2 becomes impossible. Thus P4 contradicts P1 which thus contradicts P2. From this, the argument is self-contradictory and therefore unsound.
	While it seemed free will would be a solution for the problem of evil, it caused several internal contradictions. These contradictions imply that not only does evil contradict God's nature, but free will also is a myth (gives you a lot to wake up for in the morning). From this, there is one conclusion. We have free will and from it comes evil, but God does not exist. This argument would avoid the internal contradictions of God's omniscience and omnipotence with free will, while still explaining the existence of evil.