While I agree with certain aspects of both theories, I have to dispute both outlooks on the ultimate power of God. John Hick believes that there is no way you can deny the existence of evil, but he believes all evil exists because the all powerful God allows it to. How could a God who is all good allow evil to be present, you ask? Hick’s answer to your question would be; In order to draw us closer to him(GOD). If there were no sorrows, pains, or woes, mankind would not see the need for God’s forgiveness and love.
The second word in the statement ‘us’, proves 2 separate beings… not one. The statement itself; to make man in God’s image, if there were three entities that made this omnipotent creator who he was, wouldn’t man be made up the same? No humans of any religious domination claim themselves to be a trinity! The strongest argument against the dogmatic doctrine of the trinity comes from the Gospel according to Matthew, 3rd chapter verses 15 through 17, when Jesus was baptized. The Gospel clearly states when Jesus was baptized, the heavens were opened, the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove upon Jesus, and the voice of God came from the sky claiming “This is my ‘son’, the beloved, with whom I am well pleased”.
Therefore, how do we know then what God approves or disapproves of? Divine command theory is the idea that certain actions are morally good or morally bad because they are what God wills for us. God’s demands determine what is right or wrong. What he tells us to do is right, and what he tells us not to do is wrong. This theory states that the only thing that makes an
If you recall the story, • Jehoshaphat was facing a great multitude • Jehoshaphat declared a fast • God answered – 1 Chronicles 20:17 (you will not need to fight) • Sing to the Lord and praised him - 1 Chronicles 20:21 • The Lord sets an ambush – 1 Chronicles 20:22 What we believe about God, is vitally important in putting our complete faith & trust in Him as our refuge. A.W. Tozer puts it this way, “What comes to ours minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” If we do not believe God can be and is our refuge, then we are putting our trust in earthly securities, and thus putting limits on God. It may be that our faith in God is not what it should be. So right out the gate, I have a challenge for all of us, me included… What is your refuge?
And from the resulting chaos, arose a man whose thoughts are of great value for the church to this day, Blaise Pascal. Pascal was found deeply rooted in the tradition of Augustine, but remained a committed Catholic. He spoke into a world filled with reformation induced confusion, and is remembered mostly for his wager. He argues we must wager on God’s existence, because we cannot know with certainty if he does or does not. Then he appeals to the reader to wager that God does exist, for it is the greater gain.
Praying is essential when believing in God, but praying should be meant to thanking the invisible, not asking for more. This proves how one desires for more--desires to have something beyond what the eyes can see. What if the God we claim to know is only The Creator, not a
Ahuramazda was not opposed, but he was supreme. He believes that right is opposed by the lie, truth is opposed by falsehood and life is opposed by death. According to the textbook, "At the beginning of the world, the good spirit of Ahuramazda was opposed by the evil spirit (50)." They believed that humans played a role in this cosmic struggle between good and evil, and that the God gives them the power to choose between right
Evil is relative. As humans, we are not strictly good or evil. A response should not define a person, especially when society has the final say on whether a person is “good” or “bad”. People resort to evil to describe something they cannot rationalize. There is no reason for it, so many people turn to God, saying that evil was a form of punishment for sin.
When I was a kid, I foolishly prayed for pain, knowing “that the testing of [my] faith produces endurance,” leading to perfection and completion (James 1:2-4). Feeling blessed like Job, I wanted to prove myself, but I realize now that only fools pray for pain. Nonetheless, he is a fool who has never experienced true anguish. Instead, I should have prayed for wisdom, understanding that God may pour it down from heaven in the form of pain. This juxtaposition of a loving and all-powerful Creator with the presence of evil perplexes theologians and philosophers alike, but Robert Farrar Capon suggests that “If God seems to be in no hurry to make the problem of evil go away, maybe we shouldn’t be, either … Maybe… evil is where we meet God.” The book of Job is an encouraging testament to the suffering soul, but anyone who would seek out Job’s pain for himself is beyond ascetic.
Euthyphro, the argument, gives two alternatives to the divine command theory that either morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God. 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
What is the problem of evil? What are the problems that J.L. Mackie finds with the freewill solution to the problem of evil? Are there possible solutions to the problems that Mackie raises? The customary contentions for the presence of God have been reasonably completely scrutinized by rationalists.
Hello Sir I have a question about the connection between God’s existence and morality. The Euthyphro dilemma summarizes Kant’s argument. Our motivation to obey God’s commands are either moral or not. If moral then the moral motivation to obey God precedes God’s command. In which case, introducing God adds nothing.
Cleaerly, God must have created evil for a specific purpose. This essay will explain the theory that God created evil as a test for humans to prove that they are devoted to God and will not come to doubt his greatness when faced with hardships. The basic argument surrounding the Problem
The Great Awakening unleashed a new wave of conversions driven by a desire to be cleansed of sin and avoid eternal punishment. These beliefs depend on a fear of God rather than sole worship, as He is portrayed to be a spiteful, all-powerful being. In my teaching, the fear of God was not placed within me. Instead, a deeper trust in God’s saving powers was instilled upon my beliefs, which attempted to draw belief from love rather than fear. God was portrayed as an all-loving being attempting to free us from the control of sin, which quite evidently contradicts the image of a vengeful God.
Decision are not made in advance. Therefore, free will is possible under an omniscient God. Response to Objections While Lewis made a valid argument in defense of Theological Fatalism, he has failed to recognize that predestination, in any form, still warrants that one’s actions will be predetermined. Opponents of Lewis’ argument would argue that even though god exists in an timeless realm, we still can not act out of free will. The argument is as follows: God timelessly knows that I will do C. If god timelessly knows that I will do C,then C is now-necessary.