The big question to ask yourself people of the jury is, “If God is all good and powerful, then where does evil come from. God cannot be the creator of evil if he is all good. If he is all good and powerful and he did create evil, then why does he not get rid of
His argument assumes that the titles confer power. This assumption forms a circular argument. The angels have magnificent titles because they are powerful. They have power because they have magnificent titles. This is not the case because the source of their power has its origin in God, not their title.
When discussing the philosophy of God’s plausible existence, several well composed arguments are presented, from Anselm’s Ontological Argument based the definition of God, to the Teleolgical argument grounded in the idea that a complex creation demands an intelligent creator; additionally, many debate that there is no need for a rational explanation as we are required in the nature of belief to take ‘leap of a faith’ regarding the existence of God. While each side offers valuable insight into this dilemma, I would argue that neither fully proves the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God. However, as I will discuss in the rest of the paper, the Teleolgical Argument and Kierkengaard’s faith eliminates dread argument when combined can reasonably provide evidence for the existence of God. Out of the five major opinions for God existence in regards to reason, the Teleolgical argument does the best job of not just proving a God exists but
Thomas Paine is the author of “Common Sense” and “The Age of Reason.” Paine was a believer in one God, he hopes for happiness beyond this life, and he believes in equality among man. Paine also believes religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and to make fellow creatures happy. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man. Paine argues against “special revelation.” He did not believe that God revealed himself through supernatural means. Paine says that he did not see the angel himself, therefore he had a right to not to believe.
These religious references build upon each other to develop Burgess’ notion that God created humans with free will, and how this leaves humankind flawed and prone to evil tendences. Though, despite this, humanity’s free will is the most important thing to both God and humanity itself. Burgess sees humans as beings
"(Lackey 493) From this statement one can suggest that Huckleberry's morals were spoken into fruition by God, thus why he claim it is wrong to loot and maltreat others, which is against the bible, yet with prejudice, based on his own feeling, he ultimately does not betray Jim. Although Huckleberry
So, it is stated in the Bible that He does make good of all, that does not mean he created the evil he allows to have some positive outcome. However, God will take a situation and mold it to either mature someone spiritually or use that person and their experience to help others towards salvation. Clearly, evil and strife come from free will, the intent and malice of man. Since man has the option and opportunity to decide and act upon what he wishes, consequences
The phrase could be an attempt at alliteration, both God and good start with the letter G. The phrase is short, easy to say, and since good is a relative word the phrase can be universally used. Both party 1 and party 2 could say God is good, if the phrase is simply poetic, because they would be using the phrase as a metaphor to reflect what they deem as good on their own lives. But if God truly exist, and the phrase is not just poetic, then both party1 and party 2 cannot say that God is good because there is no way of objectively identify the goodness of God. God instructed Abraham to sacrifice his son in order to prove his devotion to God, and God only stops Abraham when God sees that Abraham is fully willing to kill his own son. Even after that, Abraham and others still call God good.
This is because critics may question the origins of God based on Descartes’s claim that perfection precedes imperfection and “something must come from something”. (Bennet 2004, 12) It is important to note that perfection in itself reaches a limit because it is incapable of improving further, thus when God possesses the sum of all possible perfections, it would mean that God does not have potential for anymore improvements. This presents a dilemma for Descartes because if God is already perfect, and perfection is viewed to be a form limit itself, then there must be no being who is more perfect than God himself. However, since everything has a cause, God must have origins as well. This means that God either comes from nothing or something.
We must grant him his due regarding some of the absurdities found in theology. And yet, it escapes him that perhaps religious doctrines exist to serve subtle moral purposes, and that scientific fact is not their major concern. His opinions about religion epitomize all the myopia common to materialism and atheism. He forgets the profoundly inspirational qualities of faith; he ignores religion’s storehouse of literature, myth, and consoling rituals; and he entirely forgets the critical importance of religion in passing on a culture’s moral values. Had he understood the nature of man more deeply, he would have understood that only philosophers and saints can be induced to do good by appeals to reason alone; for the average man, only the fears of eternal damnation will keep his baser instincts in check.