God would not make humanity with free will and force them only to do good, because it would go against His will for creation to perform good acts freely. In conclusion, we must remember the words of Paul in that, “from Him and through Him and to Him are all things” (Romans 11:36). Not “all things” except free will or evil. Not “all things” on a general scale but not on a personal one. All things come from Him, exist through Him and ultimately exist for His glory, even moral and natural evil.
If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then why does he allow real suffering to exist within the world of humanity? Based on my personal reflection, I believe that God shouldn’t be categorized as both an all-powerful and an all-loving God, since he allows moral and natural evil to occur within the world. Wouldn’t an all-loving and all-powerful God want to see humans happy and allow empathy in the world? In the book of Genesis, God is considered as the sole creator of everything involved in the universe. Considering that he is the sole creator, we would intent that all things he brought would be based on soulful and good intentions.
God’s being is eidos, the essence which forms the basis of humans. With God defined, the core problem being investigated by Augustine and Evodius becomes clear. Augustine states the key issue that must be reconciled in his inquiry; “we believe that everything that exists comes from the one God, and yet we believe that God is not the cause of sins. What is troubling is that if you admit that sins come from… God, pretty soon you’ll be tracing those sins back to God” (Augustine, 3). It therefore appears evident that God must be the root of all evil, as He created all things.
Philo first begins his argument by stating that if God is truly dominant than he can control everything. Afterwards he continues on to state that if God was willing to avert evil but not able to than he was inept. If he is able to avert it but not willing to, he is malicious. With that being said, Philo concluded that if God truly believed in the well being of man-kind, than there would be no evil in this world. Demea responds by stating that we are only a speck in the whole universe limited to only what we can see.
Moreover, he believes that suffering and evil can not be blamed on God, but rather on the free will of man. Ever since the first sin of Adam and Eve, free will has caused suffering. Thus, the mere existence of atrocities and discrimination in the world means that every man is complicit to the suffering and evil of others. Because of this, Dostoevsky demands that men take action to prevent all the suffering within their power. Through Dostoevsky’s personal experience with suffering and Orthodox Christian beliefs, he sufficiently answers the question of theodicy as the necessity of suffering for the realization of human redemption, along with the role of Christ’s atonement and human compassion in justifying and combating
Cleanthes observed that the world had an order to it, and that it must be attributed to a purposeful backing. Cleanthes stressed the importance of the anthropomorphizing of God through that it was the only way we could become closer to him and celebrate his greatness. He argued that Demea’s God was too un-relatable to humanity and that nobody would worship him. Cleanthes solved for the problem of evil by pointing out that there is much more good than evil in the world. Cleanthes said that Philo and Demea were overexaggerating on the amount of evil, and that goodness heavily outweighed evil, proving that God does exist with his triad of
Through this story, Milton recognizes that in the same instance free will and reason facilitates us to obey God, it is also a challenge to control against our selfish desires. Free will promotes one’s innate selfish desire causing them to disobey God. Most Christian denominations understand free will from the fall of man. The fall of man illustrates the original ... ... middle of paper ... ...e such a thing would be too weak.”(17) In this explanation, Augustine synopsizes the idea that the mind is not subject to the inordinate desire if it has virtue and is in control. However, if a mind does not have control, then free will becomes attracted to our selfish desires.
Philo claims that it is inconceivable that the planet was made by a being both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. That God is the maker and He is wholly moral, he can't be answerable for the presence of evil in the planet. Evil, indeed, does not exist as an unrelated substance: it is noticeably a nonappearance of great similarly as difficulty seeing is the nonattendance of sight. This unlucky deficiency emerges through the activities of people who hold unrestrained choice. The God of Christian belief in higher powers might be guarded against the above charge in light of the fact that people must have free will in mind to be human.
Perhaps the only explanation we can give is that Wordsworth believes that Man has, somewhere deep down in him, the ability to be a creator, an architect who can use nature and not abuse it. He also believes that Man keeps destroying nature without realizing the effects this adds to our lives. Hopkins shows this same type of idea but with a higher connection, the power of God. He uses God as a way of showing us the wrong we are doing. He shows Man's disobedience of God as a way to show that we have forgotten nature.
Hobbes forgets to see the depth that the subjective nature can achieve, the same depth he himself enacted through his books. Although he states that religion is the foundation of morality, Hobbes sees human nature as the source of morality—that is a strength that his writings possess. Fundamentally because it gives more control to humans over their individual will. This isn’t such a good thing in Hobbes’s mind perhaps—he claims that humans are naturally evil. I appreciate this idea in a different sense; humans are the sole creator of religion and any idea or superstition they fallow, therefore they must be the source of morality.