This book report serves as a brief synopsis of Thomas B. Warren’s book, Have Atheists Proved There Is No God? In this book, Warren addresses the “problem of evil”, one of the atheists’ most prominent arguments against the existence of God. This argument is summed up in three main premises: (1) God is omnipotent (2) God is omnibenevolent (3) Evil exists. However, there are some additional premises which must be added in order to show the “logical contradiction” involved in the main three. With the addition of three more premises, the atheist “makes his case” that God cannot exist, because the existence of evil “contradicts” God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Interestingly, the atheist admits that this “problem” could be overcome by “explain[ing] the three basic propositions in such fashion as to hold on to all three while still avoiding the so-called problem of evil.” Warren lays out a precise logical argument that does just that, and he explicates each …show more content…
This means that God created the world so as to best suit his purpose in creating it, which (according to Warren) was to make a proper setting for “soul-making” (the development of man’s soul in choosing to love and serve God). This, as Warren describes, requires that certain characteristics be present in order for the environment to be “ideal” for God’s purpose. Some of these features include that it not be either overwhelming or underwhelming in its proof of the existence of God (because either would essentially strip man of his ability to freely choose), it would provide a challenge to man, it would include things that are insignificant in comparison with eternity, it would provide for man’s physical needs, etc. Understanding these necessary characteristics in relation to God’s purpose for this world resolves many of the issues that the atheist will raise in regards to the “problem of
William C. Plachers’ article, “Is the Bible True?” explores deeper into the subject of the Bible and if it content it contains is credible information. Through Plachers’ statement, “We need to understand the genre to understand a text. Reading a text literally is not always reading it faithfully,” we are able to reach the idea that the Bible is in fact true, but it all depends on how the individual interprets the text.
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
In this paper, I will use the writings of John Hick and Richard Swinburne to dispute the problem of evil argument. After I first elaborate on the P.O.E., I will give support for God’s existence with regards to the problem of evil. Then, I will address further counterarguments
The problem of evil is a deductive a priori argument who’s goal is to prove the non-existence of God. In addition to Mackie’s three main premises he also introduces some “quasi-logical” rules that give further evidence to his argument. First he presumes that a good thing will eliminate evil to the extent that it can and second, that omnipotence has no limits. From these two “additional premises,” it can be concluded that a completely good and omnipotent being will eliminate all possible evil. After establishing these added premises Mackie continues with his piece to list and negate several theistic responses to the argument.
Mackie in his paper Evil and Omnipotence, constructs an argument against the idea of the possibility of a God existing that has the characteristics laid out by the main religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. These characteristics include that God is omnipotent, or He is capable of stopping evil, and omni benevolent, or He wants to eliminate evil and He is entirely good. Mackie systematically goes through his logical thought process as well as his response to any type of criticism or alternative solution that might arise. The main point of his argument is to establish that God, as constructed by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, could not possibly exist. It is one of the most highly regarded arguments towards atheism.
When it comes to choosing an argument for the existence of god I believe that Paley’s argument of creation and design is the best for proving that god does exist. In his argument Paley is suggesting that if we were to look at the world around us, we could easily come to the conclusion that it was not created by pure chance but, by a creator (a designer). Paley uses a watch and a rock in order to explain his argument. He mentions how if there was a watch on the floor and we have never seen it before, we would easily come to the conclusion that the watch could not have been made by pure chance but, some kind of intelligent design was put into it. He argues that when we look at the rock we do not so easily see the design, but it does not mean
He believed the more you emerge with nature, the more divine you will be, because God made nature art. He also brings up the argument that if you don’t associate with nature then you don’t understand your surroundings just like you won’t understand God. In the “Nature,” he says “We are as much strangers to nature as we are aliens from God. We do not understand the notes of birds. The fox and the deer run away from us; the bear and tiger rent us.
Throughout our course we have read and considered many ideas, however for the duration of this paper I will focus on two core ideas. These are the ideas that God is the first efficient cause and whether God is good. For the duration of this paper I will look at Aquinas’s five ways, Hume’s refutation of God being the efficient cause. Also Dostoevsky’s and Hume’s explanation that God is not good because of the abundance of pain. Throughout the class what I have come to learn and was most impacted by is that God is not what we prescribe him to be in our different religions. Also the arguments that always stood out for me were the arguments of Hume and his skepticism. It is my goal through this paper to explain that God is not the entity
Theology is an intentionally reflective endeavor. Every day we reflect upon the real, vital, and true experience of the benevolent God that exists. We as humans tend to be social beings, and being so we communicate our beliefs with one another in order to validate ourselves. Furthermore atheism has many forms, three of the most popular atheistic beliefs include: scientific atheism, humanistic atheism and the most popular one being protest atheism. Scientific atheism is the idea that science is the answer for everything and god is not existent. The humanistic approach states that society is self-sufficient; therefore God is not needed for survival. Therefore how could he exist? The position that I will argue in this paper is the pessimistic idea of protest atheism.
The creation of the orderly world reveals God is present in a loving, loyal, all-knowingly, and powerful way. He provided a world for mankind to reign on, as they worship and praise the Lord. Although Christians are required to embrace the natural world we live in, they must not misconstrue that everything around us is Godly. God is distinct and Christians must submit to only him.
This essay attempts to capitalize on Goldman 's “What is justified belief?” to form an opinion about his ideas. Goldman makes a break from traditional views of knowledge to form a theory of externalism. He gives the reader a new point of view for observing the relationship between knowledge and justification. The following passage will weed out some important aspects of his theory and how they relate to his theory as a whole.
The problem of reconciling an omnipotent, perfectly just, perfectly benevolent god with a world full of evil and suffering has plagued believers since the beginning of religious thought. Atheists often site this paradox in order to demonstrate that such a god cannot exist and, therefore, that theism is an invalid position. Theodicy is a branch of philosophy that seeks to defend religion by reconciling the supposed existence of an omnipotent, perfectly just God with the presence of evil and suffering in the world. In fact, the word “theodicy” consists of the Greek words “theos,” or God, and “dike,” or justice (Knox 1981, 1). Thus, theodicy seeks to find a sense of divine justice in a world filled with suffering.
Edwards tells the readers that “God’s excellency, […] seemed to appear in everything; in the sun, moon and stars; in the clouds, and blue sky; in the grass, flowers, trees, in the water, and all nature;” (165). The first thing to notice is the paradox that seems to be inherent in Edwards’s views. He specifically says that all nature has God’s Excellency, however in reality all nature is dangerous and had at one level or another. For example, Edward’s mentions water, and while water is a symbol of purity and hope there is also danger and death surrounding water. Water can be contaminated which kill people, or water can come in the form of rain, sleet, and snow which are all destructive forces. Especially snow because snow at the time of Edwards if there is too much would bury their homes, and they would freeze to death. However, the paradox is the Edwards actually views this and all of the other things more in a positive light. He views “all nature” as a means to show “God’s excellency”. When these words of God’s Excellency are used most readers would automatically that what the person was talking about was a safe haven, but as previously mentioned the reality of nature is different as what Edwards’s perspective is. The reason for this is because Edwards perspective has been changed through his faith, and through this evidence it is clear that Edwards is trying to make a
When God created the world “by faith is we understand that the world were framed by the word of God, so that the things which we see how did not come into being out of things which had previously appeared” (Athanasius...
People all over the world have different religions that believe in there is an almighty being. This means that they believe and worship the almighty being. However, there are people who have questioned whether such a being exists. The question has raised several arguments from different philosophers. Each of them came up with their different views about the controversy surrounding the question. God’s ‘existence’ is one of the widely discussed topics over the years. The question came to place due to some occurrences in society. Similarly, different scientific innovations have contributed to the continued debate on the question. God is believed to be ‘all-powerful’ because there is nothing that he cannot do. This means that he is able to perform anything that is beyond human capability. Such beliefs have raised several questions because they are not in line with science or logic in different ways. God’s existence contradicts with humanity, logic, and science.