Through interpretations of St. Augustine, J.L. Mackie, and David Hume's arguments in reference to the God and evil problem, the problems inherent in the argument will support the assertion that the Christian God cannot exist; the definition must be altered. St. Augustine argues that the world is fundamentally good and believes in the concept of the Great Chain of Being. God is the ultimate and supreme good and each being, in a chain-like fashion, is a lesser degree of the perfect idea of good. Evil only comes into play when a member of God's world renounces his/her role in the proper scheme of things.
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. Therefore: (d) God is not omnibenevolent or He is not omnipotent. Either element of the conclusion is damaging to the traditional understanding of a Judeo-Christian God. It seems simple enough. A benevolent Creator appears incompatible with what we understand to be the existence of evil.
” This sums up what has been said about humans having moral objections to good and evil, evil distorting good reality and evils objective nature. This chapter urges the reader to think deeper about the creation of the universe and why there is so much evil in it, weather Christian, atheist or anything else you cannot deny the logical facts given that prove the existence of evil is just one more thing that points to the existence of God.
If such a God existed, He would prevent the occurrence of such evil. This is therefore a definitive proof of atheism, in the sense of denying the existence of God as He is conceived in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. It must be admitted, though, that this conception of God is a sharply-delineated and simplistic one, whereas many people nowadays have a 'soft-focus' God. It is harder work for the atheist to refute the soft-focus God, although it can still be done.
Richard Swinburne's "The Problem of Evil": God's Existence Philosophers have looked for ways to explain God's existence for centuries. One such argment that the believer must justify in order to maintain the possibility of God's existence is the problem of evil. In his essay, "The Problem of Evil," by Richard Swinburne, the author attempts to explain how evil can exist in a world created by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Being, namely God. Swinburne uses to free-will defense and says that God gave us a choice between doing good and doing evil. If someone chooses to do good over evil, then that Good is greater than if one had no choice at all but to do good.
In monotheistic faith God is defined with a triad of attributes as being all good, all powerful and all knowing. This triad is what is empirically derived from God being the prime mover. The fact of evil, or theodicy, possess that there exists evil in this world and that this triad cannot exist through that evil conflicts with all three existing at once. The presence of evil means that God lacks one of these attributes because if he had them all, he would not allow evil to exist. If God and evil are to coexist then God must be: all knowing, all powerful, but good enough to want to stop it, lacking the knowledge to know how to stop it, or lacking the power to be able to stop it.
In Augustine's Confessions, the early church father puts forth a complex theodicy in which he declares evil to be nonexistent. Such a leap may seem to be illogical, but this idea stems from the understanding of what is substance and what is not. According to Augustine, the duality of good and evil is false, because anything that is good is substance and what humans think of as evil is simply the absence of the good (Confessions, 126). Vices for example, are just the display of the absence of the good. Pride is the absence of humility, unrighteous anger the absence of temperance, and so on.
McCloskey wrote an article about it called “On Being an Atheist”, which attempts to defeat the notion that there is a God. McCloskey first addresses the reader of the article and says these arguments he is about to address are only “proofs”, which should not be trusted by any theist. He then goes and unpacks the two arguments that he believes can actually be addressed, the cosmological and teleological argument. McCloskey also addresses the problem of evil, free will, and why atheism is more comforting than theism. In the article “On being an Atheist”, by H.J.
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. The best way to do this is to change the way one perceives God. This does not mean people are forced to abandon the biblical witness of God, but instead to come up with a better way to understand the Bible’s language concerning God. Too often people, especially Christians, jump to conclusions in defining God in terms of power. They overlook one of the main themes of the Bible that is summed up in 1 John 4:8: God is love.
Both moral and natural evil exist in the world. If God is all loving and all powerful, why does he allow moral evils, such as humans committing evil act... ... middle of paper ... ...of evil in which we are and aren’t held accountable for. It is God who is accountable for our actions for he is the one who granted us with the power. With that being said, I argue that there is an inconsistency between the three tenets that intelligence and rational Christians affirm. Based on my belief, we cannot label God as all-powerful and loving considering that he has allowed the existence of evil not only to be welcomed into society but also to let it continue.