In response to the parent analogy, Hume concedes that the Problem of Evil argument does not wholly disprove the existence of God. Though, he does point out that the parent analogy assumes that God exists, which means we require further reasons to believe that he does in order to accept this particular theodicy. He concludes that most "objections seem to be mere fault-finding and trickery; and then we can 't imagine how we could ever give weight to them" (pg. 9). Overall, he decides that the Problem of Evil argument shows it is more logical to believe that God does
Many argue that these theodicies are flawed, and they reject God’s all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good nature by means of finding Him to be less than perfect. In my opinion, The Free Will Defense allows me to understand why evil exists in our world. Our free will is what creates the struggling of mankind, not God. Considering the fact that we are not perfect, it would be impossible for us to create a world that is both free and good. I trust God has a greater plan for us in which he permits evil to exist.
Riley Case writes, "We are a strange mixture of good and evil. On the one hand we are the highest of God 's creation, made in his image.....On the other hand we do not naturally glorify Him as God." "Real evil enters the picture when we refuse to accept the finitude of human life or try to play God with our own or others ' lives." When we go against the will of God, we are sinning. "Original sin is the idea that human beings cannot help but think, act, and speak in ways that violate God 's will--until, that is, God goes to work on them, changing them from inside out."
Galileo believes in the Bible and that God has supreme authority over the world, but he sees religion and science as two different things. It is not the purpose of the Bible to explain the physical world, it is there to save our souls. He makes three distinguishes: The Bible and Church have all matters of faith., if any scientific finding if proven to be true but is against the teachings of the Bible, then we have not found the true meaning of the Bible, and anything not proven that is against the Bible must be
This means that God would not be all knowing and not omniscient. From these questions, Hume comes to a conclusion that God is indifferent about His creations and allows evil to just happen in the world that he created. The only support the Wager has is the support of Christian belief. There is no evidence that is brought into the claim other than just making the claim if God is real and you do not believe, you will suffer in hell for all of eternity. Where Hume provides evidence by showing how to prevent evil is in our
As before, God is all good and all powerful. God would determine that murdering someone would be an error in the faculty of judgement of the man, which was given to him by God. However, this is where Descartes’ rebuttal differs. Descartes would acknowledge that the man made an error in his faculty of judgement, but would say that this man is not protected from making errors. Coupled with that, Descartes’ would claim that this man’s error has actually occurred to make the universe a perfect place, even if the man’s life is not perfect.
He is favoring towards Christianity to believe in God than realizing that there are other outcomes in this world. In brief, Pascal 's wager fails to demonstrate that putting a bet on God could lead to infinite happiness, and the best outcome. He does address perfectly the criticism by endorsing a type of indirect voluntarism according to which, if we believe in God, we will eventually acquire this belief. His wager, has shown the importance of having faith in God for whatever reason and at whatever cost, he thinks, has flaws that just makes it fall apart. Believing
He strongly believes that “the scientific method is our only source of knowledge” (58). I disagree with his belief because people also possess their own sense of knowledge. They gain this knowledge through the different obstacles they come across in their lives, which indicates that not all knowledge comes from scientific method. Freud describes “the teachings of Jesus as “psychologically impossible and useless for our lives” (38). I cannot agree with his statement because there are people who study and believe in Jesus because Jesus gives them an optimistic view to life.
1. How does Clark defend belief from Clifford? Clark defends against W.K. Clifford's claim that it is wrong to believe anything on the basis of inadequate evidence, and that belief in God without evidence or argument is nevertheless rational. He also concludes that theistic arguments are redundant to understanding God because God would not put the obstacle of difficult thinking between people and Himself.
If all we are is stardust bumping into stardust, no one can argue that there should be rules in this cosmic mosh pit. If there is no purpose, then rules can only be arbitrary. Arguments can be made for individual or culturally-based morality, but there is no standard by which to judge which morality is right. By contrast, consistent Christians believe that God’s Law as it is given to us in the Old and New Testaments is the only valid standard for morality. God has made us in His image and He demands that we be holy as He is holy (Leviticus 11:14).
Their belief is that God is only allowed to create a person’s trait and characteristics. According to Got Questions, the bible does not support the idea behind eugenics. Got Questions states, “that men can better himself by ridding the world of ‘undesirable’ people is definitely not biblical.” Even Dr. Georgia Purdom agrees by stating, “we see that eugenics does not align with the Bible.” Even when I was a Christian I was taught that we were created in God’s image. If we were created in God’s image, why try to change
Admittedly, while I do believe Lewis makes the best argument for the existence of God, it should be noted that Freud died before Lewis. Therefore, Lewis had the final word and Freud was not able to defend his position against Lewis. However, even if Freud was able to counter Lewis’s arguments, Freud’s ideas were all based strictly on reason and lacked faith. In any event, all good arguments are based on critical reason and faith. In addition, Lewis shows how religion is not the easiest route to take; however it can reveal life-altering insights into one’s life.
Thomas, to break the silence, said, “I mean you have freedom of believing anything you want, unless it is the religions of the Judo-Christians, or the Muslims. This is true because they believe God gave some humans his holy word to tell others about.” (Paine, 1794, P.96) Andrew’s blood at this point came to a boil, which invoked him to ask “So none of the bible is real according to you?” Thomas responded, “Yes, except for Job and Psalms 15. These two are real out of the entire bible and this is because it conveys the idea of God through his creation instead of his word. For Nature speaks a universal language that any man, woman, or child can read to learn about God and his salvation. This language can’t be faked or changed as it fits the human.
His speech is not simply aided by the frightful connotations held with each word, but by the objective nature of his statements. Edwards speaks not from personal view, but from the view of a spiteful God forced to gaze upon the state of His creation. The omission of phrases such as “I believe” or other personal statements places the central focus upon God rather than Edwards himself. Despite his reputation as a gifted, educated minister, an audience of anxious colonists is likely to fear God in a manner which cannot be held towards a mere human being. By speaking instead for God Himself when Edwards declares, “Men’s hands cannot be strong when God rises up”, a superstitious audience is left petrified with distress.
From this it is then reasonable to conclude that this causality was set in motion by a supreme being which is God. This argument answers the question of whether or not there is a God far better than the intelligent design arguments of William Paley. For, Paley’s argument easily invalidated by modern science because it argues that simply because there are complex features that can’t be explained by nature and that there are further complex forms in the universe then there must be a God who created the