Ancient philosophers have faced the problem of Evil iand Bad in the Universe and

GOOdness of GOD.
Athiests have tried to refute GOD on the ground of evels and bads.
There argument against the Existence of G-D (DIVINE Essence) is based on two sy
llogysms.
SYLOGISM A ; ;
If G-D is Good then Evis and Bads DO NOT EXIST..................A1
EVILS AND VBADS DO EXIST ............................................A2.
There fore G-D is Not Good..................................................A3
SYLLOGYM B
If God is Not Good then G-d Does Not Exist..........................B1
G-D is not Good.................................................................
.B2
There fore G-D DOES NOT EXIST..........................................B3
This is the substance and the Essence of there argument.
That is If God is Not Good then G-D Does not exist..
These Athiests know very well thayt there this argument can not disprove G-D.
If some one believes that G-D is NOT God then the so called /alleged argument ag
ainst G0-D fails.
This argument can only make problems to those people who believe that G-D is GOO
D.
So it is qa relative disprove ogf God.,
If the apponent of an Athiest does not believe that G-0D is Good then this argum
ent falls down.
Tbe burden of proof is on the Athiest to shew that IF THERE IS A G-D then That G
-D must be GOOD. Other wise G-D
SHALL CEASE TO BE G-D.
How ever it is a fact that a number of Religions do believe that G-D is GOOD.
But as this has been shewn with logical clearity that the validity of this argum
ent or argumentoid depends upon the belief of the opponent of the Athiest IT CAN
NOT BE A PROOF OF NON EXISTENCE OF G-D.
SPEAKING lOGICALLY THIS ARGUMENT BECOME ACTUALLY MORE VALID IF SOME ONE TRY
to reword it in his attempt to prove G-D is NOT GOOD.
If some one does believe in a Not Good G-D then this argument becomes more power
ful.
Any How this is not an Independent disporove of the existence of G-D..
Now we see some of the attempts to solve this G00D AND BAD MYSTERY, or GOOD AND
EVIL PUZZE.
FIRST SOLUTION
IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT there are two GODS. One of them is Good . The other pof th
em is BAD or Evil.
They ore equal in power and intellegence.However one of them is Good genipous an
d other of them is evil Geinous..
None of them can terminate the other. There are at war in the world.
Cost of this solution is Divine Unity.An other cost is lost of OMNIPOTENCE IN EA
CH ONE of them.
Second Solution:
G-D is Not Omnipotent. Evils and Bads are the consequence of some Good. G-D can
not stop the Evils and Bads which are indespensable consequences of SOME GOOD.
Cost of this solution is the lost of OMNIPOTENCE.
Third Solution.
G-D IS GOOD Ythere fore HE only Knows GOOD.
G-D does not KNOW ANY EVIL AND ANY BAD.
These evils and Bads emanates from Good.
FORHT S0LUTION.
There ae some SURD Qualities associated with G-D.So G-D created evils and Bads.
SURD QUALITIES SHEWS THAT there are soe Surdity in G-D.G-D has both Good QUALITI
ES AND SURD QUALITIES.
FIFTH SOLUTION;
Acts/Actions/Activities/Doings/Works OF G-D are UNINTENTIONAL AND WITH OUT WILL.
G-D INTENTIONALLY DO DO THE GOOD AND ALL THE BADS AND EVILS ARE DONE UNWILLINGL
Y.So g-d IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THINGS WHICH hE DOES WITH OUT A will.
SIXTH SOLUTION:
This solution is an Amalgum of the First solution and The Dogma of Trinity.
According to this solution There are Two Mutually Distinct Hypostases in One GOD
HEAD WHICH IS THE DIVINE ESSENCE
One of them is Good amd the Other of Them is Not Good.One of them Does all the G
OOD and the other of them does all those things which have a evil or bad consequ
ences.
One may term it as BINITY OR DINITY.
The objections valid to Trinity are are also valid to this solution.
Furthers this is not acceptable to Classical Trinitarians who believe in Three M
utually Distint Hypostatic Persons In ESSENCE THE BEING OF G-D..
SEVENTH SOLUTION:
G-D has assume a Non-Divine Super Human Nature.
This Nature Exist in the ALIO of the Hypostasis of G-D.
G-D can not do a number of things By His Divine Nature.
For Example G-D CAN NOT eat ,drink or die by His Divine Nature but Can do all of
these Activties by the ASSUMED NON -DIVINE NATUES.
Similarly G-D CAN NOT DO EVIL OR BAD by His Divine Nature but Can Do by His NON-
DIVINE NATURE.
Again this theory is based on the assumption of NON -Dvine Nature and fails to G
ain attention of even those who believe in the GOGMA OF ASSUMPTION of Natures.
With new and old solutions ,some of them given above it is clear that there is s
ome thing wrong in the basic terms used in the argument against the Existence of
G-D.
First the term good is VERY PROBLEMATIC.
Uptill now to definite defination and no unique meaning of this term exist.Diffe
rnt meanings and definations are assigned to this TERM
God Can not be called GOOD IN ALL the meanings and definations which so far exis
t of this TERM.
Obvioussly G-D Must be GOOD SOME OF THEM AND SOME OF THEM SHALL FAIL TO BE APPLI
CABLE UPON G-D.
Thus it is required to shew that The meaning of the termGOOD as taken by thiests
and believers of G-D is the same as taken by the Athiests, and Athiests make th
e objection on the very same meaning of the term Good which is taken by Believer
s of the ENTITY called G-D.Unless and other wise this is a fallecy.
There are a number of meanings of GOOD,BAD ,EVIL ETC. sO uNLESS AND OTHER WISE a
ll the Ahiests and the Thiests Believers and NON BELLIEVERS OF G-D agree upon a
unique meaning if the term Good, and the believewrs assert
this meaning for GOD ,while the disbelievers and Non believers deney the very sa
me meaning for the G-D,it is a fallacy to prcced the discussion any further.
For an example The terms G00D and BAD (EVIL) are often used in human senses ,and
thus become strictly for human beings .In his case GOOD and BAD/EVIL are conce
pts of Human beings and cannot be applied to God.But some of the meanings may be
strictly FOR GOD AND ONLY FOR GOD.Any how whether one believes in G-D OR DISBEL
IEVES IN G-D
,They Question is what meaning of the word GOOD is Necessory for G-D if some one
has to believe in G--d
It is Logically clear with Mathematical Certainity that there is no Definite, no
Unique meaning of this TERM, AND A NUMBER OF MEANINGS AND DEFINATIONS OF THIS T
ERM CAN NOT BE APPLIED to G-D, IN THE CASE G-D Does Exist.,SO THE ATHIESTIC ARGU
MENT becomes a fallacy and falls down due to ambiguity.Let it be supposed that
there is NO G-D at all.So Athiests are coorect in there claim that G-D DOES NOT
EXIST.But even then no Athiest can claim for an Unique meanong of the word GOOD,
NO UNIQUE DEFINATION FOR THE TERM GOOD.When even Athiest scholers can never agr
ee upon a UNIQUE MEANING of the Term Good,Upon a UNIQUE DEFINATION of the Term G
ood, How can they suppose that they and Believers of G-D Agree on a unique meani
ng ,upon a unique defination of the TERM GOOD.
SUPPOSE THAT ATHIEST OR A BELIEVER in G-D claims That G-D is GOOD.
SUPPOSE THAT an Athiest responds that G-D CAN NOT BE GOOD .Unless they are argue
ing in the one and the sames sense or meaning of the Term Good ,their DISPUTE IS
TRUELY VERBAL.
How eVer each one of them may still dispute if the Ambiguity is elimated.If ambi
guity is elimated it might be the case a more Fundamental Dispute is likely to b
e revieled.
How ever in the case an Athiest have no Funtamental Dispute this is sufficient
to shew that this is due to the ambiguity of the terms.Further a number of Athie
sts use their this Argument as an independent Fundamental Argument.If some one p
resent an argument as an independent fundamental argument and in tern it is impl
ied that is is NOT SO AND THERE IS AN OTHER MORE FUNDAMENTAL ARGUMENT BEHIND IT
,THE ARGUMENT BECOMES A NEW KIND OF FALLACIES.
To dfinitize the meaning of the terms like GOOD.RIGHT,BAD EVIL,WRONG are beyond
the scope of this article.
Similarly the same can be said for theTerms like BAD etc.
Conclusion.
All those who have neglected the ambguty of the terms have commited a Logical Er
ror