Trial Of God Reflection

owe to prove his thesis about the problems of evil and atheism, Rowe asks three fundamental questions. The first question, “is there an argument for atheism based on the problem of evil that could rationally justify atheism?” Supporting his question, Rowe by uses the idea of human and animal suffering.is it reasonable for omnipotent, omniscient being(s) to permits its creation to suffer by extinguish each other for their own personal benefits. If there is such a thing as an omnibenevolent, omnipotent holy being how come the ultimate and unescapable suffering is this world has no vanish. How good is a god(s) that permits humanity to suffer greatly? In religious Christian Bible study, Jesus, many times referred to as god, vanish evil from

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.

In the course of this essay I will argue that evil is not compatible with the existence of god. This means that evil and God cannot coexist because if god were present, the existence of evil would contradict all that god is believed to be. Abrahamic religions insist that God both created the world and that he preserves and maintains it. Christianity claims that God is all knowing and is boundless in his abilities. Religions claim that God is benevolent, and only wants the best for humanity and the universe, as his creations. If all of the above statements be true, then it is hard to understand why god would allow evil to thrive right from the beginning of time.

One of the oldest dilemmas in philosophy is also one of the greatest threats to Christian theology. The problem of evil simultaneously perplexes the world’s greatest minds and yet remains palpably close to the hearts of the most common people. If God is good, then why is there evil? The following essay describes the problem of evil in relation to God, examines Christian responses to the problem, and concludes the existence of God and the existence of evil are fully compatible.

The problem of evil is a highly debated topic among religious and non religious people. The large controversy stems from the Hebrew-Christian definition of an all knowing, all powerful creator known as God, and the presence of evil among mankind in the world, among God’s products of creation. Fyodor Dostoevsky is a philosopher who wrote the piece, Why Is There Evil? This piece explores a man named Ivan’s view on why he can’t fully except God and his world. John Hick wrote a piece named There Is A Reason Why God Allows Evil. Hicks view opposes/ can be seen as a response to Dostoevsky’s, in explaining why God has allowed

Instead of the reverence that Elie once spoke with in regards to his “Master of the Universe”, he speaks to him in an accusatory tone. Bitter, angry, and disheartened Wiesel questions not whether this figure exists, but “Where is God’s mercy?” This overall message is reflective in one of the last passages in the text that mention faith. Where is God's mercy? Where's God? How can I believe, how can anyone believe in this God of Mercy?"” (Wiesel 76) With the many questions that plague Wiesel, only more questions come about. The final one being, “How can one still believe?”

John Hick discusses in his essay The Problem of Evil, the objections to the belief in the existence of God is the presence of evil in the world. He begins by posing the traditional challenge to theism in the form of the dilemma: That if God was perfectly loving, he must wish to abolish evil, and being all powerful, is able to perfectly do so as he will its. He then proceeds to present some views regarding this issue, giving insights from three point of views, that of contemporary Christian Science, the Boston Personalist school, and the theologian Augustine. The first opinion takes evil as an illusion, as a construct of the human mind. The second confers upon God finity, God as a struggling ruler,

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.

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

The Trial of God is a play that was written by Elie Wiesel. The play was first published in 1979. The play was set in a feudal European settlement where three travelling Jewish artistes put God on trial to answer for His quietness during a pogrom. It is a powerful drama with historical and especially post-Shoah concerns surrounding faith. While imprisoned in Auschwitz, Elie Wiesel witnessed a trial. It was not unusual for prisoners to witness trials, this one would be different and very unusual. It was unusual because of the defendant. God was on trial. God was tried for turning his back and ignoring the Jewish people in their ultimate hour of need. God was tried in absentia. I mean how you can put God on the witness stand is a question all in itself. There was one problem, no one was willing to take on the role of God's attorney. God was eventually found guilty. After the verdict was announced, the "court" prayed. How is that for an oxymoron? But this incident, which served as the inspiration for The Trial of God, is part of the long Jewish tradition of arguing with God.

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

This is the problem of evil. Augustine summed it up most effectively when he said, “Either God cannot abolish evil or he will not. If he cannot then he is not all-powerful. If he will not then he is not all good.” Augustine viewed evil as merely the absence of good just as dark is the absence of light, a non-being “a name for nothing but the want of good”. He looked to the Bible for an explanation for the existence of God and believed that the fall of humanity from grace, as shown in Genesis, showed the origin of evil. He believed that evil came into the world because human beings had deliberately turned away from God and his goodness. This suggests that both moral and natural evil is a result of original human sin.

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

When looking at the common theme that Barth develops in God Here and Now, it becomes apparent for the need of congregation to justify, ratify, and promote the Bible as the living word of God. When and where the Bible constitutes its own authority and significance, it mediates the very presence of God through the congregation. Encountering this presence in the Church, among those whose lives presume living through the Bible’s power and meaning. Barth states that the Bible must become God's Word and this occurs only when God wills to address us in and through it. The Christ-event is God's definitive self-disclosure, while Scripture and preaching are made to correspond to him as a faithful witness becomes the perfect statement according to

Throughout the bible, and reading it once more by Marcus Borg, a common idea as it relates to a religious experience, is that the Bible is a human product. Throughout chapter two, Borg continuously describes the Bible as being a product of humans. He explains on page 22 that he sees scripture through the lens of the Bible being a human product, meaning that it is the “product of two ancient communities” (22). He believed that what the Bible explains things to be are words from the communities of ancient Israel and the early Christian movement. “We cannot talk about God (or anything else) except with the words, symbols, stories, concepts, and categories known to us, for they are the only language we have”, made me think about the idea that