The Christian View Of God

John Hick argues in this writing that the all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good Christian god is compatible with an abundance of suffering. He offers solutions to the problem of suffering which relies heavily upon a tripartite foundation. Hick divides evil into two: Moral Evil = the evil that human being cause - either to themselves or to each other. And Non-Moral Evil = the evil that is not caused by human activity - natural disasters, etc. He tries to explain that a world without pain and suffering, moral traits such as courage, patience and sympathy would not be developed.

Before we can dive into the problem of evil, we must define a term. Whenever the word “God” is used in this paper, it is referring to the classical theistic conception of God. In this view of God, God is that, “than which nothing greater can be conceived” in your mind. Any attributes or qualities that make a being great, God has to the maximum. This means that, among many other qualities, God is benevolent(all good), omnipotent(all powerful), and omniscient(all knowing). Furthermore, God is the creator of the universe and is personally connected to the human race.

The Christian Worldview is very widely known in today’s society. This religion has many strong beliefs about the creation of the world and what waits for believers in the afterlife. Psalms 111:10 gives a good idea of the foundation of the Christian worldview by saying. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise.” (New International Version). The Christian worldview has very specific beliefs and expectations in God, humanity, Jesus and Restoration.

If God is so loving and good, how can He allow so much evil and bad things to happen in this world? One of the biggest stumbling block for millions of people in the world, commonly this is the question that I have heard, keep people from believing in God at all. In reflection of reading Night, by Elie Wiesel, I think that this is an important question to tackle. One of the themes of the memoir Night is, “the silence of God in all the atrocities and evil of this world.” Eliezer becomes hopeless, we see this when he says, “And then, there was no longer any reason for me to fast. I no longer accepted God’s silence.” (pg. 69, Night). When investigating such a heavy topic, it is important to focus on a few different areas. The idea of a loving and perfect God, but an evil and corrupt world. On page 76 of Night, Eliezer cries, “"It's over. God is no longer with us." And as though he regretted having uttered such words so coldly, so dryly, he added in his broken voice, "I know. No one has the right to say things like that. I know that very well. Man is too insignificant, too limited, to even try to comprehend God's mysterious ways...I suffer hell in my soul and my flesh. I also have eyes and I see what is being done here. Where is God's mercy? Where's God? How can I believe, how can anyone believe in this God of Mercy?"” To explain such a claim, let’s look at where evil comes from (what is the root of all evil), and, what the bible says about God being faithful/good. When it comes

Does the problem of evil pose a challenge for theists and the existence of God? The problem of evil argues that there is so much suffering in the world that an all-good and all powerful God would not allow such suffering to exist. Therefore, a God with those characteristics does not exist. Unless the suffering is necessary for an adequate reason. Some people argue that suffering is necessary for there to be good and for us to able to understand what good is. In this paper, I will argue that suffering does not need to exist in order for good to exist, because the existence of good does not depend on suffering. I will then argue that good and suffering are not logical opposites. Finally, I will conclude that since evil is not justified, then the God that we defined does not exist.

An argument against the existence of God is based on the presence of evil in the world. This deductively valid argument is divided into two categories; human action and natural evil (Sober, 2005, p. 120). Human action discusses how experiences makes us better people, while natural evil are tragic events that are not under the control of humans. Each category is used as evidence to refute God as an all-powerful omniscient, omnibenevolent, or omnipotent being. In order to understand the strengths of this argument, it is important for an overall assessment of how the presence of evil questions if a Supreme Being actually exists, by arguing why a being of all-good would allow evil, importance of evil in a good world, and questioning God’s intervention in evil.

For atheists, apologetics, and non-believers, a big topic of contention is the existence of evil in a world with God. This is known as the problem with evil. How does a God that is all knowing, all powerful, and perfectly good allow such atrocities to occur under his watch? It is this question that so many people have discussed. The argument centers on God being omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good (Mackie, 1955 p. 200). Omnipotent is to be all powerful. Omniscient is to be all knowing and to be perfectly good means that God would prevent a morally bad event from ever happening (Swinburne, 1998 p. 13). In the problem of evil, God’s powers are taken at face value, and applied to God’s inaction to evil on earth. People who argue against the topic of evil typically make generalizations on the attributes that God

Philosopher Peter Van Inwagen argues in The Argument from Evil for the existence of God. Inwagen believes that the concept of free-will is the reason why evil exists in the world. He first discusses what the characteristics of a God are; a God is omnipotent and morally perfect. These reasons present the Problem of Evil which is; why would an omnipotent and morally perfect God allow evil to persist? To this question, we get the two explanations of a theodicy, which provides justification for God, and a defense, which takes into evidence evil and suggests that humans may not have the whole picture to understand why God allows evil. The free-will defense is the most popular defense which states that God knows that evil is inevitable when it comes

One of the main arguments used by non-believers against the existence of God is the presence of evil and suffering in the world. The term ‘evil’ is often used to describe something that is morally wrong. Philosophers make a distinction between moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil results from human actions that are morally reproachable, and Natural evil results from the malfunctioning of the natural world, which produces entities such as disease and famine.

One of the heaviest arguments against God’s existence is the problem of evil. The traditional conception of God is as omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. If this is true then God either can’t do anything about it, doesn’t know about it or doesn’t care about it. This then implies that God is either not all powerful as he can’t prevent the suffering, not all-knowing as he doesn’t know about the suffering, or not all good if he doesn’t care about the suffering. This challenges the concept of God being the greatest being in the universe. However, there are many different responses to the concept of evil, they may not be all satisfactory but they cast doubt on this argument. One of the responses challenging the problem of evil is that God did not create the evil in the world. A lot of the evil in the world only occurs

The problem of evil is, perhaps, the predominant theological concern for any religion that affirms the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. Although the problem of evil does not and cannot rebut the existence of God, it does however, establish an inconsistency with God's perfect attributes. The problem of evil almost always ask these questions in one form or another: If God is perfect, why is there innocent suffering? Given the qualities attributed to God, is there any way to reconcile the suffering of the innocent? Specifically, if God is able to prevent the suffering of the innocent, yet chooses not to, then He is not omnibenevolent.

Terrorism, deceit, rape, murder, theft, etc.; they result from the choices of free agents. We live in the world that is filled with countless instances of evil and suffering. The Philosophical Journey: An Interactive Approach defines moral evil as the “bad actions and their unfortunate results for which humans (or other moral agents) are morally responsible.” Moral evil is most challenging for some to accept and understand when they are questioning god’s existence. If God were all-powerful, the in theory that God would be able to do something about all of the evil and sufferings. If God were morally perfect, then in theory that God would want to do something about

William Rowe defines gratuitous evil as an instance of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.(Rowe 335) In a world with so much evil it raises the questions If God is all powerful, all knowing and all good, how can he allow bad things to happen to good people? Can God even exist in a world with so such gratuitous evil? These are questions that has afflicted humanity for a very long time and has been the question to engross theologians for centuries. The existence of evil has been the most influential and powerful reason to disprove the existence of God. It is believed among many theist that God is the creator and caretaker

The theological problem of evil is a problem that many philosophers have tried to solve. The problem is stated as, "if one believes that god is omnipotent and wholly good, why does evil still exist?" In this writing I will discuss the solutions/propositions of John L. Mackie in his work, "Evil and Omnipotence." I will do this in order to illustrate the concept of free will for understanding or resolving the problem, and to reveal how and why Mackie arrives at his conclusions.

The problem of evil has been around since the beginning. How could God allow such suffering of his “chosen people”? God is supposedly all loving (omni-benevolent) and all powerful (omnipotent) and yet He allows His creations to live in a world of danger and pain. Two philosophers this class has discussed pertaining to this problem is B.C. Johnson and John Hick. Johnson provides the theists’ defense of God and he argues them. These include free will, moral urgency, the laws of nature, and God’s “higher morality”. Hick examines two types of theodicies – the Augustinian position and the Irenaeus position. These positions also deal with free will, virtue (or moral urgency), and the laws of nature. Johnson