[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have not read the rest of the thread.

The traditional problem in the phil of religion is that a contradiction is supposed to arise if god is thought to possess the following attributes:

1. Omnipotence
2. Omniscience
3. Omnibenevolence

If god is omnipotent, then he has the power/ability to prevent evil. If god is omniscient, then he knows how to prevent evil. If god is omnibenevolent, then he is all-loving and all-good, and therefore would not allow any evil.

The contradiction comes with the observation that there is, in fact, evil in the world (both man-made and natural).

[/ QUOTE ]

This contradiction is solved easily by concluding that the evil in the world must ultimately contribute to some higher good that we are unaware of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Far from resolving the contradiction easily, this response (which is common) is tantamount to saying nothing more than "There only appears to be a contradiction, and we are just too ignorant to explain why there isn't really one." In other words, it says nothing more than "I won't accept that there's really a contradiction, and all I can say in defense of that conclusion is that I can't really explain why."

The idea of positing a 'higher good' that makes the evil that exists somehow necessary does not solve the problem--the fact remains that there is evil in the world and conceiving god as having those three attributes leads to a contradiction. God could just as well have created a world with whatever 'higher good' you might conjecture evil is required for, without creating the evil.