A lot of arguments have been known to prove or disprove the existence of God, and the Problem of Evil is one of them. The Problem of Evil argues that it is impossible to have God and evil existing in the same world. Due to ideal characteristics of God, evil should not have a chance to exist and make human suffer. In this essay, I will examine the argument for the Problem of Evil, a possible theodicy against the argument, and reply to the theodicy. First of all, to be clear, the Problem of Evil is an argument that shows that God cannot be either all- powerful, all-knowing, and/or all good.
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. The first statement that showcases that God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, then evil cannot possibly exist.
If man was never tempted to turn away from God, nothing bad would ever happen. True, life would be extremely different and marvelous, but how would God know if mankind truly loved him? Emma Hughes states, “Paradise Lost illustrates God’s creation of man and free will as evidence of His perfect nature, not as a contradiction of His benevolence,”(Hughes). God creating man with free will was no mistake. Milton states, ¨In the beginning how the Heavens and Earth rose out of Chaos,¨(1, 9).
For example, Danforth frequently spoke of the importance of fairness and justice, however when he found out that Abigail’s testimony was false, he refused to stop those that had been found guilty through Abigail’s testimony from being hanged. This is shown on page 100 in Act 4 of The Crucible where Danforth says, “Mr. Hale, as God have not empowered me like Joshua to stop this sun from rising, so I cannot withhold from them the perfection of their punishment.” It is assumed that the court will uphold morality and justice, yet Danforth’s character shows the inversion of the normal moral order in the
I personally don’t think religion should play a part because it would still be considered doing something for a higher being. I’m not saying I don’t believe in god, I’m just saying we shouldn’t do “good” because “someone” is watching us. For example, a non-specific God said we should take care of the world we live in because it is the right thing to do or we would sin for not doing so. Anyone can clearly see anything that isn’t taken care of goes bad. God didn’t need to tell us that.
In my point of view having freewill is the source of rights. Because we only have the use and benefits of rights when we have freewill. Explaining this argument, there is no logic of giving rights to a creature or person which cannot grasp or having need to use those rights and giving rights to that living is pointless. Furthermore I disagree with Locke`s view that rights protect men from the force of others (1). Rights are ethical principles and moral values we have in our lives.
Without morality, law does not exist because it does not contain real justice. Real justice is following natural and moral law in how a person punishes and acts. Natural law is instilled into the hearts of men by God and provides a means of deciphering right from wrong. It can be “discovered by reason alone and applies to all people, while divine law can be discovered only through God 's special revelation and applies only to those to whom it is revealed and who God specifically indicates are to be bound.”12 Though one may not believe in divine or moral law, natural law can still be used to determine justice from injustice. Many do not understand that natural law and civil law are both branches of moral law, and when either are used, moral law is being referenced.
Who has not, a hundred times, found himself committing a vile or a stupid action, for no other reason than because he knows he should not. Have we not a perpetual inclination in the teeth of our best judgment to violate that which is law merely because we understand it to be such?... It was this unfathomable longing of the soul to offer violence to its own nature, to do wrong for all the wrong 's sake only- that urged me to continue. (BC,
For the Christian, there is no justifying immoral behavior, regardless of the outcome of it or the motivation for it. The Ten Commandments make it clear that stealing, lying, greed, murder, and adultery are unacceptable in God’s eyes and He makes no "escape clause" for rationalization or motivation. So, clearly, from God’s perspective, there are no ends that justify the means of breaking his law. Therefore, believer, have no reason whatsoever to break one of God’s commandments. Then, this assertion matches with Gandhi's words, “the Creator has given us control over means, none over the end".
If God says you should do something you should do it. It is Meta ethical theory because it focuses on what morality itself is and it is concerned with why things are right and wrong. According to this theory good actions are those that God Commands and the action is morally good because it is ordered according to God’s law and individual is considered to be good if he/she use his/her will in the way that it has been ordered by God. For example Stealing is forbidden in all
Supernatural Being knowledge has not any limit, He knows all. God have been us free determination, which consents the chance for societies towards choosing to do evil, and without it, there’d be absence of humanoid choice and He cannot coercion societies to deed in a definite manner. Nonbelievers should think about behaviors similar to sympathy and mercy since they wouldn’t exist if there was no evil in the creation. Killing evil is creating the
Hick, however, might relate higher morality back to the hedonistic world mentioned in the argument above. There is a reason for our world to have suffering since it is built into the structure of the world. That reason, Hick argues, is for “soul-making”, or character building (129). Without having some suffering, then there would be no characters, such as courage. The higher morality of God relates back to that because He has a legitimacy for that suffering.