This Week Keller Focused On The Frequently Asked Question

In this paper, I will present to you the problem of evil and the criticisms it faces as evil and deities coexists in one ______. Starting out it is important to understand where the dissonance comes from. How can God, an inherently ‘good’ figure, said to know everything, exist in a world where evil exists? If God knows everything that is going to happen, and does not do anything to prevent evil from occurring, or can we label him as a good figure? The big question we must look at is God the cause of evil? The problem of evil proves to be the existence of evil in a world where we believe God to be all knowing, all good and all powerful. Through

Religion and science play crucial roles in defining who we are and our outlook on societal norms.

Many people of 20th century though, turned for truth in the logic of science. It had made many things simpler for them and had offered them a better standard of living. Even so, as Cat’s Cradle demonstrates, their is both a good and evil side to science. When it is used with careless negligence, the results of manipulating nature can be formidable. It is a tool, and must be used with respect for others. Because of this, there is ultimately a limit to the truth many people search for in this field; although we can advance through science and exploration, it doesn’t take into account human ethics and morals. It therefore doesn’t offer meaning, and it doesn’t offer happiness. One must search for those realizations from

Chapter two teaches about the problem of evil. Dr. Keller writes that evil is not evidence against God, but rather it is evidence for God, if anything. Keller then goes on to write that readers should remember that Christ and God the Father both suffered and went through evil. They, however, went through it willingly to save mankind. He teaches that through the cross the resurrection of

How could an all powerful, and morally perfect God, allow evil to exist? I argue that from a logical perspective, a PKM God and evil cannot coexist. I will also refute against claims that evil may be present for good intents, as well as giving examples of the harm it causes in real world circumstances, and how a powerful, knowing, and morally perfect God would not allow such evils to exist.

The conflict between science and religion has always been existed. In many religious institutions, especially Muslim and Jewish, belief in Darwinism or other scientific theories is forbidden (Ferngren, 2002). Therefore, scientific studies in faith schools subsequently differ from normal school one’s. For example, Dawkins (2006) argues that faith schools tend only to teach children in a religious way, avoiding such important curriculums such as science and humanism. Similarly, Cush(2005) states that faith schools provide limited choice of scientific and sociological subjects. The knowledge of science basics is compulsory for every decent citizen in the age of new technologies and scientific humanity progress.

While these and other points made a lot of sense to me, I did find several logical fallacies in Keller’s arguments, and even noticed that he includes several misquotes in the book. I don’t have space to explore these downfalls in such a short essay, but they are disappointing to me because I feel Keller has a very relatable written voice and logical way of writing that is appealing to many readers. However, I believe God can still use this book to “open doors” to new believers, and maybe even help some skeptics to re-evaluate their

In the context of the development of scientific thought in the seventeenth century which was abandoning the idea of the cosmos in favor of an open universe guided by inviolable laws

Death, war and anger are all results of sin. Human nature cannot stand against these horrible things and question God’s control over the world. A common question that people struggle to understand is “Why would God allow sin to happen?” Even people long ago essentially asked these questions from time to time. Two famous poets from the past even referenced God’s creation and how it behaves today. Even so, a unique way to give an answer to these thoughts is to learn something from them by being aware of how things are today, knowing how sin affected earth, and acknowledging that God is in control of what happens on earth.

1); also, science “confers no special authority to answer a nonscientific question” (pp.1). Scientists claim that science is attacked from two sides, the fundamentalism of Christianity, and the humanities. Nevertheless, for the humanities to respect and distinguish the sciences is not enough, they need, “the humanities to submit to the sciences and be subsumed by them” (pp.3). If God exists, is for philosophy to determine, not science. Traditional religions and cultures influence believer’s interpretation of understanding and are traditions of value. As a result, the relationship between value and fact in these traditions is so strong that values often overpower facts. The study of greater ideas about life are common in science, but these ideas cannot be only based or accepted completely on scientific grounds; a scientific viewpoint may not be as broad as many think. Scientists cannot note the way natural sciences and humanities differ, since humanities would have to be explainable by science. Besides, humanities do not advance, progress, or study the way sciences do, the humanities are a study of the sciences inwardness. The central goal of scientism is the transformation of non-scientific dialogue into scientific dialogue. Meanwhile, respected

In this paper, I explain what the problem of evil is under a general scope in order to demonstrate the synthesis of my research. I also describe and evaluate four classic examples of solutions, or attempts, to solve the issues surrounding the problem of evil. These approaches to the problem were discussed in our textbook and include, karma, appeal to sovereignty, the consolation of promise, and dualism. I also include some selective quotations from a variety of scholars that compliment my evaluation and help further illuminate my insights. I discuss the reoccurring theme of possible indifference displayed by God in regards to humankind. I also touch on the possible implications of having an indifferent solution to the problem of evil

Douglas J. Futuyma on the limits of science: [[S]cience seeks to explain only objective knowledge], [knowledge that can be acquired independently by different investigators if they follow a prescribed course of observation or experiment]. [Many human experiences and concerns are not objective] and (so) [do not fall within the realm of science]. (As a result), **[science has nothing to say about aesthetics or morality]**….[The functioning of human society, then, clearly requires principles that stem from some source other than science.]

Lastly, lets look at humans respond to evil. Typically, people either respond by evasion or revolt. Evasion is ignoring the evil, pretending it is not existent. Revolt would be described as anger with God. The way people respond to evil can either help fight against the problem of evil, or create more evil. In order to make a difference to evil we need to rewire how we respond to evil. We can take away evil’s power by how we allow it to effect us.

Though for some a subject far too heavy to be spoken of but in hushed tones, Hell has been the topic of much debate and speculation by theologians and philosophers, both Christian and otherwise. They have pondered such questions as whether or not hell is a real place, and if so whether it is divided into different sections or if it is one homogenous lake of fire. Even for those who may not believe in Hell, the idea of a place of eternal torment as punishment for ones’ sins is a fascinating one. It causes one to contemplate the nature of sin and humanity, whether some sins are worse than others, and if so, does

Since the dawn of mankind religion has been one of the most significant elements of a society’s social and cultural beliefs and actions. However, this trend has declined due to the general increase in knowledge regarding our the natural sciences. Where we had previously attributed something that we didn’t understand to the working of a higher power, is now replaced by a simple explanation offered by natural sciences. While advocates of Religion may question Natural Sciences by stating that they are based on assumptions, it is important to note the Natural Sciences are based on theories and principles which can be proven using mathematical equations and formulas. Faith however contrasts from the easily visible feasibility of data