Many people question how God exists in a world full of so much evil, while other people have no problem accepting the reality of an omniscient (all knowing), omnibenevolent (all good), and omnipotent (all powerful) God. According to John Hick, God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. Hick’s version of God allows the existence of evil for a specific purpose. Process- Relational theologist believe in a God of love, power, and relatedness (Mesle, 25).
Mackie’s argument highlights the inconsistency that arises between the premises of God’s existence. Mackie proposes the problem of evil to be that “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; [God exists]; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, 1955, p.200). Mackie states these four propositions cannot coexist, therefore, if evil exists, God cannot and conversely, if God is real evil must be
Descartes most famous phrase “I think, therefore I am” shows that we cannot be deceived of our own existence as we cannot think if we exist if we do not in fact exist. Descartes’ second part of the hypothesis for the Evil Demon argument refutes the idea of there being such a being with the assumption of a God. With the assumption of a God who is merciful and kind the chance of an evil being deceiving and tricking us would be highly unlikely to happen. Therefore, we can be very sure that we are not being deceived by an evil demon, only for those who believe in God. Other people who do not would rather not believe in the existence of God than believe the uncertainty of everything else (Descartes first mediation, page 202).
Divine command theory has many weaknesses. The weaknesses of this theory are best shown by Plato’s dialogue, Euthyphro, which poses a question. Are actions morally good because they are approved by God or the gods, or whether God or the gods approve of action because they are morally good? If someone believes that morally good acts are good because they are willed by God, then God could command us to do anything, and it would be right for us to do it. Whatever God commands becomes the principle of moral rightness.
Epicurus questions how and why evil exists if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. He understands that God cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving if evil exists since s/he would then be limited in power and love. This means that God either does not have the power to stop evil or God is no so loving and will allow evil in the world. I will analyze Epicurus’ question through John Hick’s theodicy of soul making.
This tries to prove God’s existence by saying that all natural things were created for a purpose by an intelligent designer; this is much like Paley’s Teleological Argument. This argument does not work because it does not prove that the intelligent designer of natural things must be God. Overall, Aquinas’s argument fails to fulfil its only purpose: prove that God exists. If an argument cannot prove that God is all knowing, all good, and all powerful, then it does not prove the existence of a god at all. Another main reason why this argument and many other arguments for God’s existence does not work is because of the problem of evil.
If someone believed that God does exist they would obtain Heaven, but if they believed God exists but God doesn’t then they lose nothing. If a person did not believe in God and God does exists then they would obtain Hell and severe misery. If a person did not believe God exists and God does not exist, they would lose nothing. Pascal’s wager states that a person cannot come to know God by reason alone so it is best that a person lives as if God does exist, because a person would not lose anything if God did not exist. Pascal’s wager says it is safer to bet that God does exist and to live a life like God does exist.
Louise M. Antony argues an important ethical concern in her article, “Good minus God”. Can a person do good deeds without God? Arguing from an atheistic point of view, Antony believes that a person does not need to depend on God in order to complete good deeds. I agree, whether Christian or Atheist, all can perform good deeds, but who ultimately defines good versus evil? Antony subjectively defines morality and uses nature as her source.
Mavrodes explains that if god is omnipotent, then the stone question is a contradiction in and of itself. His reasoning makes logical sense because if one agrees that god is an all powerful entity, then there is no realm in which god can create something that he cannot lift. As Mavrodes articulates, the crux of the question is its built in attempt to imply that god is not omnipotent. And, if one believes that God is not omnipotent, then it follows that of course god would not be able to lift the stone, or would not be able to create a stone heavy enough to lift thus rendering him non-omnipotent. And, if one believes that god is omnipotent, then this question is irrelevant because this question is a contradiction.
Further he explained that neither alternative is true and therefore the Divine command theory is false. So is Plato suggesting that there is no such thing as a definition of holiness, that there is no one feature that all holy deeds have in
The foundation of Judeo-Christian beliefs is the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. This belief is held in absolutes, even in the face of evil and tragedy. Those outside of religion see these beliefs as contradicting, arguing that God cannot be all-good and all-powerful while at the same time allowing evil to occur. The “argument from evil”, often used by those who are agnostic or atheist, are a set of premises that have stumped theists in the argument for an all-good and all-powerful God in the presence of evil (Pojman 117). However, the belief of an all-good and all-powerful God can be defended by considering what the meaning of the word “good” is in the first place and how it relates to God’s influence on humanity.
From the “Night” by Elie Wiesel, his Jew character turns to God and asks: “What are You, my God? I thought angrily. How do You compare to this stricken mass gathered to affirm to You their faith, their anger, their defiance? What does Your grandeur mean, Master of the Universe, in the face of all this cowardice, this decay, and this misery?
Response to “On Being an Atheist” Ida Hart PHIL 201 – B30 LUO Dr. David Beck McCloskey’s article, “On Being an Atheist” contains arguments that he uses to explain Atheism, the non-existence of God. Using the claims made by theists and attempting to taint the character and nature of the Christian God, he points out what he calls several defects of the arguments. In his introduction he offers a brief reminder to fellow atheist stating the grounds and the inadequacies of these grounds for theism. He later calls them “proofs”, alleging that the proofs do not provide adequate justification for believing that God exists. This only proves that he is among the many that choose to use the arguments in the wrong way.
“Someone was throwing stones: Roger was dropping them, his one hand still on the lever... Roger, with a sense of delirious abandonment, leaned all his weight on the lever... The rock struck Piggy” (Golding 180-181). Roger murders Piggy in Lord of the Flies by William Golding, and he does so without a reason. Roger, Piggy, and many other young boys are stuck on a uncivilized island after a plane crash.
“Rafar stepped up behind Langstrat and sank his talons deep into her skull. She twitched and gagged for a moment and then slowly, hideously, her countenance took on the unmistakable expressions of the Prince of Babylon himself” (“Read” Ch.19). This Present Darkness by Frank Peretti is a Christian novel that deals with how demons and angels interact in our daily lives. Set in a small town named Ashton, demons plan to take over the town for their personal use. They do this by controlling the minds of several different people, and then making them do what they say.