Dating with radioisotope

13-Mar-2018 12:23

Posted: September 17, 2013 in Arguments, Bible Related, Essays and Papers, Logic Related Tags: bad, defense, evil, freewill, God, Good, logic, Love, pain, philosophy, right, suffering, theodicy, wrong Planes fly into towers, gunman empty magazines into classrooms, tsunamis wipe out cities, cancers steal our loved ones away, and people hurt us every day. It strikes without warning, at any time, at anyone, without prejudice. And yet, some believe that this world is governed by a God that is pure love, all knowing and all powerful. The extent of our personal suffering is enough to lead one to believe God is not who He claims to be. And as far as they’re concerned, the theist is irrational to believe in both a good God and evil.

Why does He allow evil to destroy our lives and ravage our hopes? The presence of evil in this world has long since been used to show the undeniable lack of God’s existence for centuries.

In this paper I will present the atheist’s argument of the problem of evil and then thoroughly explore the many responses theists propose to reconcile the problem of evil with God. Other responses seek to clarify exactly who God is to reconcile His existence with evil.

And some address evil with a theodicy, which is a proclamation of what God’s reasons are for evil in an effort to argue He is just in permitting evils.

Other personal conceptions of who God is may be irrelevant. But at the same time all three are essential parts of most theological positions: the theologian it seems, at once must adhere and cannot consistently adhere to all three,” (Mackie, 299). Whether it is the logical or evidential problem, the atheologian charge is that a God with the attributes that the Judeo-Christian tradition requires could and should prevent the evil we experience in this world.If two statements are logically inconsistent it is impossible for both of them to be true.What needs to be proven, however, is that the two are inconsistent.So additional statements are needed to be added to the first two premises to make them true, and conversely for the atheist, additional statements are required to display the fallacy.For example: 1) God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and good.

Other personal conceptions of who God is may be irrelevant. But at the same time all three are essential parts of most theological positions: the theologian it seems, at once must adhere and cannot consistently adhere to all three,” (Mackie, 299). Whether it is the logical or evidential problem, the atheologian charge is that a God with the attributes that the Judeo-Christian tradition requires could and should prevent the evil we experience in this world.

If two statements are logically inconsistent it is impossible for both of them to be true.

What needs to be proven, however, is that the two are inconsistent.

So additional statements are needed to be added to the first two premises to make them true, and conversely for the atheist, additional statements are required to display the fallacy.

For example: 1) God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and good.

The purpose of this essay is to provide rational reasoning to defend the notion that a loving and all powerful God and a world of evil can together exist.