Believing that god is the one who makes us have ideas, without concrete proof would be reckless. This is why I believe that if god`s existence cannot be proven there shouldn’t be any arguments stating that this spirit is the one who controls everything. Lastly, since it`s impossible to prove god`s existence, Berkeley`s response fails to skepticism even if he`s completely right when he says that everything is an idea.
It is impossible to taste the sweet without having first tasted the sour. This is one of the many lessons found within Genesis 2.0 and more specifically the story of Adam and Eve. It is also from this twisted tale of betrayal and deceit that we gain our knowledge of mankind?s free will, and God?s intentions regarding this human capacity. There is one school of thought which believes that life is mapped out with no regard for individual choice while contrary belief tells us that mankind is capable of free will and therefore has control over hisown life and the consequences of his actions. The story of Adam and Eve and the time they spent in ?paradise?
While God is the embodiment of goodness and cannot make the decision to be anything but good, other members in the Great Chain of Being do have the ability to willfully alter their predisposition... ... middle of paper ... ...l, and knowing, suffering should not exist in the world. The writings and interpretations of St. Augustine, J.L. Mackie, and David Hume have discredited the free will defense. This is much due to the notions that God could choose not to punish man for the sins of Adam and Eve and create them so that they always freely choose the good. The only true defense to theodicy is that a Christian God does not exist.
The paradox of the stone is an odd thing, if god wanted to keep his omnipotence he could just not create the stone therefore not be challenged. If we look at the scenario in a logical way if a being with all power was faced with this scenario and wanted to keep being all powerful it could just not create the stone. Which I believe is an error in the paradox’s thinking that this would either take gods omnipotence or create an illogical answer. This should help prove that the argument isn’t
Yet machines do not have the capability to feel happiness or sorrow to preserve them from propagation of life. Philo then questions how are people to believe in the understanding of attributes from a perfect God that is incomprehensible. Demea thinks that all man should understand the truth of religion and should not enter into a higher consciousness or reasoning of a Deity, this would be considered blasphemy. He constantly questions how one should vie... ... middle of paper ... ...ll be incoherent in an ambiguous understanding of truth versus false. Philo tries to establish the existence of God does not work or have any reason to say he exist or doesn't without proof.
Demea responds by stating that we are only a speck in the whole universe limited to only what we can see. What seems evil to us now may not be evil for we cannot see how everything will end. Once we look at everything as a whole, we must make the connections and understand that with God in charge, everything will work out for the best. We cannot say that God is evil when we are only looking at the world from our point of view for we cannot see the ultimate goal which God seems to have in mind. After analyzing what Demea states, one finds that he is unknowingly on the same page as Philo.
The only other solution is for God to not create the world at all. He argues that for any world God could create, which included freedom, there is at least one action on which Man would go wrong, or else he could not create any world at all. This phenomenon he calls transworld depravity. Therefore, for God to create a world in which humans had moral freedom, the existence of both Good and Evil is necessary.
Specifically, they disagree on whether or not this world could be the best possible world God created. In this paper, I plan to dissect both men’s solutions to the problem of evil and furthermore argue for Leibniz’s solution that this is the best possible world that God could have created. Before I begin going through these philosopher’s solutions it’s important to understand first why they believed evil was a problem. The problem of evil has been commonly regarded as the main argument for atheism. The argument stems from the logic that if God is a perfect being and created everything; how can evil exist?
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.
The world is not perfect so it seems that God must not be all-loving or He must not be all-powerful. Rejecting the existence of evil, immediately rejects too much of the Judeo-Christian tradition to be considered, though some philosophers have considered it. The traditional Christian answer to why God allowed the death of Christ is for the absolution of humanity’s sin. However, this begs the question, as an omnipotent God why was it necess... ... middle of paper ... ...owardice or evil (2) must then work to minimize good (1) and maximize evil (1). This process can continue ad infinitum It also follows that God, not as benevolent as could be hoped, prefers the maximization of good (2) as opposed to the minimization of evil (1).