What Does It Mean To Say God Is Good

The phrase, thought, and belief “God is good” is common within religions that hold sacred the Old Testament. People often assume that their God works to benefit and comfort all of His human creations. They

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. In contrast, I believe God created all things and defines good and evil through His creation and Word. And finally, as followers of God, our motivation for accomplishing good comes from our love for all God has done for us. Imagine a world without order, chaotic without a specific guide to right or wrong–a world without God.

For thousands of people, what is holy and what is moral comes from religious texts that act as a guide for individuals for how they ought to live their lives. This idea of holiness and morality for many is deeply rooted in the understanding that it originates with God; it is a necessary condition for it to be binding. However, what if what is holy and moral didn’t originate from God’s goodness, rather it comes from other mediums and is itself good thus being approved by God? This idea of existence and thought is a question that can be outlined in Plato’s, The Euthyphro.

The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.

Ethics and the search for a good moral foundation first drew me into the world of philosophy. It is agreed that the two most important Ethical views are from the world’s two most renowned ethical philosophers Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. In this paper, I will explore be analyzing Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle and Kant’s Categorical Imperative. In particular, I want to discuss which principle provides a better guideline for making moral decisions. And which for practical purposes ought to be taught to individuals. I hope to convince the reader that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is the better way to live a morally conscious life and more practical to follow as well. First I will briefly describe both Kant’s and Mill’s principles. Then I will go on to explain the advantages and disadvantages of both. Finally, I hope to provide a counterargument for some of Kant’s Categorical Imperatives downfalls.

The question that is asked time and time again is whether or not god exists. It is evident that people hold different beliefs. It is evident that through some of the beliefs of J.L. Mackie that it could be argued that God does not actually exist. I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist. At the beginning of the article, Mackie states that the initial issue with God’s existence is that, “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, Paragraph 3). If god is such a pure and good being, then he should be able to combat all evil.

247) considers two solutions proposed for Hume’s argument. He writes, “One way that is frequently used is to maintain that what is commonly called evil is only an illusion, or at worst only the ‘privation’ or absence of good.” Nagel disassembles this proposition, noting in any case the suffering and misery are real; thus, this argument is insensitive to human suffering. The second proposal is, “the things called evil are evil only because they are view in isolation; they are not evil when viewed in proper perspective and in relation to the rest of creation.” Nagel concludes, if this is true, what specifically is the greater good? It is not sufficient to state some great may come about because of

The Phrase he used was “God is that than which no greater can be conceived”. There are two reasons as to why Anselm words this the way he does, reason one is the idea that “ no greater can be conceived” he doesn’t want you to be able to think about something greater hence the idea that no greater can be thought of by a person. The second reason is that he doesn’t want to suggest that the idea of a positive god can be

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?

After a terrific storm sweeps over the Pacific Ocean during World War II, a group of British schoolboys are stranded on a tropical island following a plane crash. Forced to survive on their own, the boys attempt to govern themselves but ultimately succumb to savagery. In a different era, a Prophet stands before a group of villagers who ask him to speak of the good and evil in all people. The Prophet responds by only speaking of good and refers to “evil” as none other than good that is lost and uninspired. Utilizing prose and poetry respectively, William Golding's Lord of the Flies and Khalil Gibran's "Good and Evil XXII" both reject the idea of evil being a separate entity, but while "evil" manifests itself

The logical argument concerning the problem of evil stems from two propositions that seem difficult to hold true at the same time: there exists an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God and there are great amounts of suffering and evil in the world. This argument concludes that since there is moral and natural evil in the world, that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God cannot exist since an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God would not create evil, or would at least seek to destroy it. To argue against this, the free-will defense is used. The free-will defense is successful as it provides a reason for moral evil, but it fails to address natural evil. However, it is still logically consistent to believe in

Philo’s argument starts off with two premises: A “Deity” has unlimited power and knowledge, and anything that he wills, he will receive. Cleanthes and Demea both accept the premises to be true. Philo carries on by stating that since a “Deity” always receives what he wants, then he must not want neither man or animal to achieve happiness. Philo concludes his argument by stating that a “Deity” cannot be humane or compassionate because a man understands these phrases to show sympathy and concern for others. (p.63).

Suffering is inevitable. Everyday people experience all sorts of suffering. Whether it be through human cruelty, emotional stress, physical pain, spiritual, illness, or death, in one way or another, humans suffer. In the end, it boils down to one question: why is there suffering in the world? If God is omnipresent (everywhere present), omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing), and wholly good, why does he not do anything about it? To further understand how to deal with suffering, one must explore suffering’s origin and what it means to suffer.

The Catholic belief that God is close to mankind is true in this film because God and God-like characters are all around and interacting with the characters, and they look and act just like humans too. For example, God is missing after going to New Jersey in human form to play skee ball. The film also shows God being more sensual than the Protestant imagination believes God can be with the Muse of Creative Inspiration working as an exotic dancer. This is representing God as being close to humans, and interacting with them is normal ways. These metaphors of God being normal are also valid being of the Catholic beliefs and imagination, even if many may not agree that they are valid. Throughout the whole film, these God characters are representing the Catholic imagination (Smith,

One might object to the Problem of Evil by giving a theodicy. A theodicy is basically a justification that explains why God allows evil things to happen even though he is all-PGK. In addition, a theodicy is on the “God is all-PGK” side because it might prove that evil is needed in this world in intention of God, and evil is, of course, under control of God. One theodicy is free will. Free will is a gift from God. All creatures in this world have an ability to do whatever it is willing to do. As an illustration, a mother uses drugs, yells at her son every day, forces him to do what he does not want to, and also violently abuses him. One day, that boy kills his mother. That is murder, and that is evil. God might see that, but he let it happen due to two possibilities. First, killing his mother is what the boy needs to do to free his life, and God sees that as a solution for that boy. That is the boy’s free will. If God ever stops the son, there is no longer free will. Second, the mother needs to be removed out of this world because she is evil, and she is wrongful in treating her son. Here we can see that God intervenes to help the boy decide to stop the