Throughout almost all of humankind's existence, the introduction of the all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-knowing “God” continues to have a long-standing impact. In recent years, many people have doubted whether God is “omnipotent” or “all-good.” This topic is called The Evil Problem and it asks a question: if God exists and is capable of destroying anything, why is there still evil in the world? Many Christian philosophers have created an objection to this question, stating that God gave people free will and because of that free will they can do whatever they want, even if it is evil. If God eliminated all evil from the world, he should also be able to eliminate free will because this is morally incorrect and would make the world even worse than it could be. My opinion is that if God was supposedly a “morally perfect being”, he should have eliminated evil, pain and suffering from the world since recently there is too much of it. If God truly loved all of his creations, he would only want the best for his creation, which doesn't seem true at all. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay According to "The Problem of Evil" by Michael Tooley, the problem of evil is explained like this: 1) If God exists, God must be all-powerful, omniscient, and morally good. 2) If God is omnipotent, He should use all His power to destroy all evil and suffering. 3) If God is omniscient, he should know when evil will happen and should be able to prevent it. 4) If God were morally good, then he would desire to eliminate evil. 5) Evil exists. 6) Now, if both evil and God exist and God is not powerful enough to destroy evil, does not know when evil will happen, and/or does not have the desire to destroy evil. 7) Therefore God does not exist. One aspect of this topic is how to read evil to understand it better. For some, evil in this context means “unnecessary suffering” in the world. In the free will objection, this newly discovered appeal completely contradicts this argument. To reiterate this once again, it is argued that God gave us free will and since we have free will, we are allowed to do whatever we want, even if it is evil. But when we define “unnecessary suffering”, we can talk about poverty, natural disasters, diseases, etc. This completely contradicts the argument that free will is something that humans decide for themselves, aware of the consequences, and are completely chosen at any time. where deemed necessary, the unnecessary suffering is even random and can occur at any time. It also adds to the question of whether God is actually good if he allows natural disasters, disease, etc., which he has created since biblical times, to affect and kill his creation. The main argument of this objection is the elimination of free will leads to morally incorrectness, thus leading the world to become much worse than it is. However, Tooley argues that if God decided to create a world of humans who could exercise free will whenever necessary, while at the same time trying to create a balanced and good world, he would not allow this free will to allow humans to do good things? Let's also go back to the omnipotence that supposedly belongs to God. If God is supposedly so powerful, how can he create free will and give it to humans, but has allowed evil to spread throughout the entire world, especially when the philosophy of his entire religion it's doing good. It just doesn't make any sense. Another argument that is made in this topic is that with free will comes.