GCSE Philosophy and Ethics Practice Exam

What could be considered an argument against God's omnipotence in the context of suffering?

1. If God is omnibenevolent, surely he would not want suffering to occur

2. If God is omnipotent, surely he has the power to stop suffering

3. If God is omniscient, surely he would not allow for future suffering

4. God's omnipotence is a human construct, hence irrelevant

The correct answer is: If God is omnipotent, surely he has the power to stop suffering

The assertion that "If God is omnipotent, surely he has the power to stop suffering" effectively encapsulates a classical argument against the concept of divine omnipotence in the face of human suffering. This argument hinges on the premise that if God possesses unlimited power, then it logically follows that He should be able to alleviate or prevent suffering entirely. The existence of suffering raises challenging questions about the nature of God’s power and willingness to intervene in human affairs. This line of reasoning underscores the tension between the attributes of omnipotence and the observable reality of suffering in the world. It suggests that if God is truly omnipotent, then He should actively eliminate suffering; the failure to do so calls into question either the extent of His omnipotence or His willingness to act for good. The other options pertain to different aspects of the character of God or focus on different attributes such as omnibenevolence or omniscience, but all are ultimately separate lines of argumentation. They contribute to similar reflections on the nature of God and suffering but do not directly address the link between omnipotence and the ability to prevent suffering as succinctly as the selected choice does.