This paper will discuss the problem of evil. In the first part, I will discuss Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s atheist stance and William Lane Craig’s theist stance on the problem of evil. In the final part of this paper, I will argue that Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s argument is stronger. The Problem of Evil
Moreover, Augustine argues, since it is “God who made human beings good, it is God, not human beings, who restores human beings so that they are good. He sets them free from the evil that they have brought upon themselves, if they will it, believe, and call upon him.” Since we have by our own will brought upon ourselves sin; we cannot be healed from our sin without the grace of
The last theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics which states that we should move from the concern towards good action and to focus on the concern with good character. This paper argues that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is better than the other ethical theories. The divine command theory says that what is morally right and what is morally wrong is determined by God and God alone. People who follow the divine command theory believe that God is the creator of all things, therefore, he must also be the creator of morally right and wrong acts.
In his essay "The Will to Believe" William James tells us that his purpose is to present "a justification of faith, a defense of our right to adopt a believing attitude in religious matters, in spite of the fact that our merely logical intellect may not have been coerced." Page2. I found his arguments also persuasive because he suggests the existence of God cannot be solve by our intellectual means. James argues that intellectual activity is motivated by two goals: to shun error and believe truth. The choice to believe or not is alive, forced and momentous.
He thought this because he believed it involved that the elect that salvation that the elect could get could also be gained by the non elect person as a result of their own effort to salvation. Which I believe from my religion to not be true. I believe that anyone has the open and free will to receive salvation it's not only given to a specific group of people. But Calvin did not believe this to be true he believed that the reprobate are the people that God intentionally chooses to neglect, I don't believe that God neglects anyone that does not neglect him. John Calvin believed firmly in election and predestination and he backed his beliefs with biblical statements.
Philo concludes that for those who already believe in an omnipotent and all-good god, these four causes are not enough to invalidate their beliefs. INSERT CITATION He says this because all four of his causes can be dispelled under the assumption that there is some divine explanation that reconciles god’s goodness with the evil in the world. However, coming from an unbiased perspective, Philo says that we certainly cannot infer the existence of a benevolent god when these causes of natural evil are taken into account. In fact, if we do attempt to divulge god’s moral attributes from the state of the universe, then Philo concludes that the only proper deduction we can draw is that god is neither good nor is he evil, but rather he is entirely indifferent to the principles of morality altogether – in essence, god is morally neutral.
Swinburne first writes of the “freewill defense” which is because of the ability for human beings to choose morality there is good and evil within the world (Swinburne, pg.83). The author objects to the freewill argument. The first main argument by Swinburne which is the response if God is omnipotence or with unlimited power why could not he just restrict our morality to good characteristics in his likeliness? (Swinburne, pg.83-84) The second argument in “Is There a God?” which adds to the first argument is could God have dwindled our ability to be evil and granted us greater goodness while still maintaining freewill?
Peter van Inwagen argument entitled “Free Will Defense,” is a theodicy because it attempts to show why God would allow evil in the world as opposed to a defense which would try to explain, logically, how evil could exist in the world with an all-loving an all-powerful God. Peter van Inwagen purposed that, yes, God is all-loving and all-powerful, and because he is all-loving, he allows for humans to make their own decisions even if these decisions lead to evil and pain. I find this to be an extremely satisfying response. It is very plausible that an all-powerful being could and would, in some way, relinquish control as a way to show and practice his love. Autonomy is good, granting free will results in autonomy, therefore granting free will
Robin Schumacher “What is Moral Relativism” Sept 2013 In comparison to the moral relativist whose view circles the Christian standards the law can be referenced at all times. In the reference to the GOD himself, words written by law for morals. From the nature of God leads to pureness that helps guide from all evil.
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, can be connected to many of the Catholic Intellectual Tradition core claims and questions. That being said, the core question “What is our relationship with the Natural World?” is actually heavily based off of this book. In book one, Lewis gives the readers a description of all the natural laws we can be faced with in this world. The Law of Human Nature, on page 4 and 5 he says “this law or rule is about right and wrong… it is called the Law of Nature because people thought that everyone knew it by nature and does not need to be taught it.”
“Someone was throwing stones: Roger was dropping them, his one hand still on the lever... Roger, with a sense of delirious abandonment, leaned all his weight on the lever... The rock struck Piggy” (Golding 180-181). Roger murders Piggy in Lord of the Flies by William Golding, and he does so without a reason. Roger, Piggy, and many other young boys are stuck on a uncivilized island after a plane crash.
Euthyphro Dilemma: A dilemma The Euthyphro dilemma consists of a question asked by Socrates in the Euthyphro text, “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are will by God?” The problem of these two mindsets create is a running and leading to an unwanted answer, or nothing at all. What may the philosopher may choose or answer with, it may result with their answer proven wrong.