The problem of evil is a difficult objection to contend with for theists. Indeed, major crises of faith can occur after observing or experiencing the wide variety and depths of suffering in the world. It also stands that these “evils” of suffering call into question the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The “greater good defense” tries to account for some of the issues presented, but still has flaws of its own. In the excerpt from Philosophy of Religion, John Hicks outlines the problem of evil as such: (a) If God were truly omnibenevolent, he would then wish to eliminate all evil; (b) If God is were truly omnipotent, he would then be capable of eliminating evil; (c) Evil exists in the world.
When you go through McCloskey’s argument it shows many flaws in his reasoning as he wanted to show that it is impossible that there is a God. Throughout McCloskey’s article he refers to that theist do not a proofs that there is a God, thus they should not be used. The problem with this is that atheist and theist would have to purge of most of their arguments for the reason that most everything does not prove the argument. McCloskey is correct that the “proofs” do not completely establish that there is a God, but they do give us a better understanding about the world and if there is a God. The cosmological and the teleological arguments are only argument, thus they do not completely prove that there is a God as Dr. Foreman says, “that these argument give us a best explanation” (Foreman).
It seems impossible to answer these questions by denying that evil and freedom exist. It can be clearly seen and argued that bad things occur in this world, just as every person can understand they have freedom when they act. Classical theism puts an extreme emphasis on God’s omnipotence and seems to make God responsible for the pain and suffering in the world. As a result, God ends up getting the blame for the mistakes found in His creation. It becomes necessary, then, to propose a scheme in which God is not so powerful that He is incapable of relating and in which He also remains God.
God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent in the Book of Job In Gutierrez's analysis on the book of Job, the justice of God seems to be the primary issue of his argument. Throughout his argument he justifies that God's way of doing things is outside the comprehension of the human mind. He states that, "God indeed has a plan, but it is not one that the human mind can grasp so as to make calculations based on it and foresee the divine action (73)." In the book of Job, God tests Job's faith by putting him through a series of trials and tribulations. Job initially doesn't understand why God does this because he has always been righteous in the sight of the Lord.
(Migliore 128) This view paints God as the punisher to both the wicked and the righteous, and that suffering is the result of one’s own actions. This argument sees the relationship between sin and suffering far too simply. Although, there is some Biblical support for this view in the old testament, it does not mirror the character of God revealed in Jesus Christ. The third argument proclaims suffering as something that turns us to God and helps to cultivate our hope for eternal life. (Migliore 128) This view teaches that Christians are supposed to encounter suffering as an opportunity to glorify God.
The Problem of Human Suffering The Christian tradition is haunted by a significant mark: Suffering. The question that arises from this suffering is if God is the omnipitous being that Christians believe Him to be, why would He let His people, whom he loves, suffer great pains and horrible deaths? According to premises derived from theologians and followers of the Bible, God is "all loving". If that is true, then God would not want His people to suffer, but by just looking around us we see that suffering, in fact, is happening. If there is suffering going on that God does not want, then He would be able to stop that suffering since He also believed to be "all powerful", yet suffering still goes on.
Conclusion To conclude, all arguments made under the divine command theory are to some extent presumptuous and contain many circumstantial variables. As stated by Henry Gensler (Gensler 2014, pg. 43), the bible contains several ‘gray areas which can be interpreted differently’ depending on the tendency of people to interpret the bible in a way that reflects personal desire. However, if a belief in the God of the bible is adopted, then logic ultimately suggests that God as a good maker is the more plausible option. As stated in the thesis, God is described in the bible as the creator of the universe and everything within it, and therefore morality cannot exist on its own terms and all things are created according to God initial design.
This idea portrays God as a righteous judge who is all loving, all-powerful, in total control, and gives people exactly what they deserve. However, Kushner sees major limitations in this idea because it teaches people to blame themselves for their suffering and creates unnecessary guilt. In addition, he argues that it may even turn people away from God and cause them to hate themselves. Victims of misfortune also try to console themselves by believing that God has his reasons for making them suffer, reasons that they are in no position to... ... middle of paper ... ...the scriptures in the Bible. Moreover, Kushner negates the traditional beliefs of scripture by using modern ideas of evolution to undermine the creation story, "In a description of Creation which is astonishingly similar to the evolutionary process as scientists have come to unravel it."
INTRODUCTION We live in a world full of people who hold different beliefs and convictions. Many of them may even be different from our own. For example John Haught, in his book God and the New Atheism shares his belief that, “Science alone can tell us what religion is really all about, and it can provide better answers than theology to every important question people ask” (x). Berger and Zijderveld, on the other hand, argue in In Praise of Doubt that, “Whether God does or does not exist in cosmic reality is another question. And this question cannot be answered by the empirical sciences: God cannot be the object of an experiment” (1).
He questions the customs and ethics of the God in various religious texts. Hitchens focuses all of the attention of the book on the negative aspects of religion and decides that due to these negative aspects of religion there is no higher power to the universe. His argument goes beyond trying to discredit religion, but he sees a call to put an end to religion. He states, “Above all, we are in need of a renewed Enlightenment, which will base itself on the proposition that the proper study of ... ... middle of paper ... ...uses does have merit because throughout history religion has had its detrimental effects. What Hitchens has done with these examples is tried to present them in a way to make a person not very well informed in reasoning skills to think that religion has caused only bad.