124). His other point is that God having a sufficient reason for permitting evil is not the same as having a hallucination. He states that having good reason for the existence of God increases the possibility that He has a reason for permitting gratuitous suffering (p. 124). He also counters the claim that there is no evidence to suggest that God is all-good and all-powerful. He refers to his moral argument—wherein without the existence of God, objective moral values would also cease to exist, but objective moral values do exist and thus God also must exist—to make the claim that God is all-good (p. 125).
If God exists and has the capability to be powerful, good, omniscient and omnipotent, why would he let evil be perpetrated? Is a God unable to suppress the evil or does he have no solution to problem of evil? The thesis posited by Mackie that evil exists and there is no God to stop the evil is still relevant to today. We still have wars, incurable diseases and struggles on this planet.
However, during his ordeal of loss and suffering, Job gradually came to resent God. This often happens to people in the midst of inexplicable calamity. Many chapters relate the faulty reasoning and accusations of Job’s three friends and Job’s denials. Finally, one of Job’s younger friends, Elihu, spoke up. He recognized that Job’s perspective was flawed and distorted.
God 's existence has been a continuous debate certainly for centuries. The issue of God 's existence is debatable because of the different kind of controversies that can be raised from an "Atheist as being the non-believer of God" and a "Theist who is the believer of God". An atheist can raise different objections on the order of the universe by claiming that the science is a reason behind the perfection of the universe. In Aquinas 's fifth argument, he claims that the order of the universe cannot be explained by chance, but only by design and purpose. To explain this order of the universe he concludes that, there is an intelligent being whom we call "God".
The basic assumption, on which the entire argument stands, that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined can seem doubtful to a person who doubts the existence of God, for if one doubts that there is a being than which no greater can be conceived, then he may also be skeptical if any person has thoughts about the same being, whose existence itself is doubtful. The argument seems to “beg the question”. Moreover, St. Anselm’s idea of existence is not very clear. It is not very clear what a physical object is, what it means to say that a physical object exists and what it means to say that a non-physical object exists. St. Anselm’s argument is based on the superiority of an existent God over a non-existent God.
God is not accessible to man to ask which religion is the truth. Nathan uses the judge in the parable to explain that each religion should prove its truth through kindness and absolute love to all. One religion should not be scornful of others in order to justify its superiority. Each religion should respect and value the positions of other religions while still staying true to its own. Nathan uses this parable to preach religious tolerance to
However, if you do not believe in God and he does exist you will be damned to the eternal suffering that is brought by hell. There is no way in proving that the Wager will succeed or not because the only way in knowing whether God is real or not is if you die. The only argument a Christian can propose is to just have faith that he exists
Some people think that if you do not have a religion then you do not believe in a higher power such as God. I believe in a God, but as to what God that is I am not sure and I also believe in an afterlife but I cannot tell you whether it is Heaven, the Netherworld, or something I have not even explored yet. I was always taught that when you commit to something, you should do it and follow all the guidelines that come along with it. In all of the religions that I have explored so far during my life, I have found one or two things that I refuse to follow in respect of my personal beliefs. This means that I can not make a complete commitment to any of these religions and do not want to call myself something that supports a contradicting brief I cannot fully believing in.
The infamous new Atheists have taken this form of argumentation and use it to argue for the merits of atheism over theism. This is a development that seems to be rooted in this new militant form of atheism, and goes something like this: If atheism is true, then I will have freedom and intellectual honesty, and it won’t matter if I’m not a Theist, because God doesn’t exist. If a good god does turn out to exist, he will forgive me. On the other hand if I’m a Christian, I must be sexually and morally constrained, and believe in a God I find to be morally abhorrent. The cost of being wrong is losing my whole life.