(Swinburne, pg.84) Theist would disagree. The second piece that counters Swinburne’s argument is by John Hicks and it is called “Evil and The God of Love”. Hicks takes a pro-freewill stance and believes in the “Soul-Making Defense” (Hick, pg.85).
Over the years, opinions on God have changed. Some people believed that God is terrifying and vengeful while others disagreed saying that He is loving and accepting of all. Jonathan Edwards was a Calvinist, who argued that unless one never sins, he or she is most likely doomed to hell. Edwards believed that humans are powerless in comparison to the power of God. In “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards, the author achieves his purpose of arguing that in order to be saved from an afterlife in hell, one must ask for forgiveness and accept Christ, through the uses of intense imagery, a terrifying tone, and understandable metaphors.
In Richard Connell’s “The Most Dangerous Game” , Rainsford is the positive force in a classic good vs. evil showdown against a psychopathic man-hunter. For example, Rainsford non - evilness is displayed when he declines General Zaroff’s “ We will hunt - you and I,” (10). This is substantial evidence towards Rainsford morals and integrity as a human. Based on the short story, a good and decent person would not want to hunt someone, it is an act of cold blood.
Penn Jillette wrote the essay “there is no God”. The essay theme principal is atheism. The author think believing there is no God, make people more kind and thoughtful. He believes no God means people will suffer less in the future. The author thinks when people suffer; they said it is god will and they do nothing about it.
The question that is asked time and time again is whether or not god exists. It is evident that people hold different beliefs. It is evident that through some of the beliefs of J.L. Mackie that it could be argued that God does not actually exist. I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist.
In this reading reflection I will be discussing Richard Swinburne’s argument on “Why God Allows Evil” which starts on page 254 in “Exploring Philosophy: An Anthology” by Steven M. Cahn. This was also discussed in class on 9/15/16. In his argument Swinburne states that “An omnipotent God could have prevented this evil, and surely a perfectly good and omnipotent God would have done so. So why is there evil?”(Swinburne, 254).
In his review of the film “Miracles from Heaven,” Father Robert Barron examines the problem of innocent suffering. For many atheists, the thing that thwarts their belief in God is the problem of innocent suffering. Why does God allow good people to suffer? There is no one answer or argument that can answer this question, but you can try to understand it better by looking at it from multiple angles. “Miracles from Heaven” deals with the issue of innocent suffering and looks at it from different perspectives.
Essay 2 My goal in this paper is to show that Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive. I begin with a formulation of Swinburne’s thoughts about the similarity and difference between moral evil and natural evil. I then formulate the connection between evil and free will. Next, I consider the potentiality objection to this argument, and Swinburne’s response to this objection.
Many people question how God exists in a world full of so much evil, while other people have no problem accepting the reality of an omniscient (all knowing), omnibenevolent (all good), and omnipotent (all powerful) God. According to John Hick, God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. Hick’s version of God allows the existence of evil for a specific purpose. Process- Relational theologist believe in a God of love, power, and relatedness (Mesle, 25).
The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.
I now realize that even the greatest theologians struggle with how little they actually understand, and that I was misguided I my grasp on the vastness of our Christian faith. Throughout our discussion, a couple key text and discussion made an impact on shaping my newfound understanding of religion. These works allowed me to see points of view I never considered before and helped me explore my own religious contemplation deeper. The first text that really stood out to me, due to its abstract thought, was Herbert McCabe’s “Evil and Omnipotence.”
Philosopher William Rowe agrees with Plantinga that propositions — that evil exists, God is omnipotent, and God is wholly good — is not logically inconsistent. Rowe does not believe it is impossible to allow God and his properties to exist along with evil. He takes a different route by focusing more on certain kinds of evil which evidently exist in the world, and not so much on the inconsistencies of the theist doctrines. This certain evil, in Rowe’s point of view, will show that a God who is all powerful and wholly good does not exist after all.
On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it. I will begin by stating the objection the anti-theodicist gives for why it is wrong that there is a problem of evil. (<--fix) Regarding passive evil not caused by human action, the anti-theodicist claims that there is an issue with a creator, God, allowing a world to exist where evil things happen, which are not caused by human beings (180-181).
The atheistic reading of evolution possesses a great challenge towards human dignity. Darwin expelled the role of God from creation by proposing the mechanistic evolution.
It is first published in 1994, the book received Gold Medallion award in 1994 in the category of doctrine and theology in the same year. The lectures in Harvard and Ohio state universities delivered by the author himself were further developed and published in the form of this book by adding up few more concepts which deal with the questions of reality of God’s existence and its influence on the lives of individuals. The book primarily addresses the despair and hopelessness in human life which the author considers to be a result of anti-theistic thinking, he answers the existential questions through various illustrations from history and his personal experiences. He subtly points at the fallacy of accusing God for the crimes committed by the individuals and institutional
