...God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is good. God is good all the time. All the time God is...
Words: 277 - Pages: 2
...The strongest argument that explains why a good, loving God would allow evils such as the Holocaust was made by the “attorney” appointed to defend God. He states that God was purifying the Jews for their sins, and with this purification the Jews would be better off. He quoted the Testament and used previous historical events to justify his claims. The objection to this argument is that why would God sacrifice good Jews in order to help make them better off. That would be illogical because by the end of the Holocaust the only surviving people would be the evil servants of Hitler. I don’t believe this is a good explanation why God would allow such suffering because the suffering is supposed to purify the Jews, but I don’t see why God would almost kill 4.9 to 6 million Jews to make them “better off”. The strongest argument that explains why a good, loving God would never allow evils such as the Holocaust is made by the “attorney” appointed to persecute God. He stated that since God is all knowing and all powerful, then he is aware of the evil going on and chooses not to do so. Therefore the God that exists is evil and not good, loving God. Someone could object to this argument by saying that God has a plan of punishing people for their sins, therefore he chooses not to intervene to teach humanity, or in this case the Jews, a lesson. Yes I believe this provides a good reason to conclude that a good, omnipotent God doesn’t exist because if he had the power to create humanity and...
Words: 289 - Pages: 2
...A good God will not allow people to suffer. Discuss. Some people believe that this statement is true. They believe that God is benevolent and therefore he is all loving, creating a positive image of himself where people believe that he wouldn’t inflict pain on any one of his creation. However, it’s not always down to God, for example some people believe in the act of free will, this means that the actions humans do such as murder, rape etc… don’t involve God. He gave humans free will so we’re responsible for what we decide to do with our life with little involvement from God. When God created the world he made it perfect. He then left his stewards to take care of and look after the world therefore a good God did create a world without suffering however it is the humans of the world that have designed a world full of pain and suffering. It is known that the Devil is the creator of evil therefore it may be possible to believe that it isn’t Gods decision but the devil has created the suffering in the world. Other people believe that this statement is false. They think that if there is no pain or suffering in our life then we won’t appreciate the good things when they happen. We would be emotionless because we can’t differentiate the good things from the bad things. Also, Christians say that God is omnipotent however if He really is all powerful then why doesn’t he intervene when a natural disaster, for example tsunamis and tornados occur instead of letting them destroy innocent...
Words: 516 - Pages: 3
...| Can We Be Good Without God? | Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Religion Can Morality Exist Without Religion? | | Rajoo Kamal-Wilnoff (10781867)Sociology 321.3, Section X01Professor Bryan PukMay 28, 2014 | “Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what’s right.” – Isaac Asimov | Can We Be Good Without God? Can we be good without God? The question has been a controversial one throughout history and a variety of positions are apparent regarding the relationship between religion and morality. Theists undoubtedly find in God a source of moral strength and resolve which enables them to live lives that are better than those that they would live without Him, but it would seem arrogant and ignorant to claim that those who do not share a belief in God do not often live good moral lives. Should the question really be about the objectivity of moral values, and whether said moral values are simply social conventions, or mere expressions of personal preference? Are they valid independently of our apprehension of them, and if so, what is their foundation? Moreover, if morality is just a human convention, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest? Are we in some way held accountable for our moral decisions and actions? This paper explores the ontological claim that the morality does not require religion, religious motivation or guidance to exist, based on the opposing views presented in two essays “Religion, Morality...
Words: 2093 - Pages: 9
...Title 1: Is there good evidence for or against the existence of God? Throughout the ages, the topic of religion has always been discussed and argued over. Some people will always argue that God does exist, whilst others will argue that he doesn’t. Firstly I would like to start my argument with the famous 13th century philosopher, Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas’ argument is known as the cosmological argument. This is the idea of: the unmoved mover, the uncaused causer and idea of contingency, these three arguments are all a posteriori (based on the evidence in the universe around us). The unmoved mover is the concept that, in theory (is logically acceptable even for an atheist), that nothing can be in motion without something first putting it into motion. This argument is very similar to Aristotle’s, which is the idea that everything that changes shape, temperature or simply into something else must be changed by something. Aquinas argued that one thing leading to another infinitely, must be wrong. Something must have been there to cause the first movement. This is why Aquinas rejects the idea of infinite regress, as he believes, that something must have set the whole chain of reactions off, for example something has to push the first domino for the chain reaction to start, and this being for Christians is the unmoved mover or in other terms God. However, many atheists reject this theory as they believe that the idea of infinite regress is very plausible. For example Aquinas...
Words: 1571 - Pages: 7
...Good God, the funeral. Jack did not know how he was going to get through this. Davinia Rothman, the lady who had been a mother to him for twenty-five years, was dead. Attending the wake was the most dismal time of his life, surrounded by a throng of Davinia’s relatives and business associates, many of whom he didn’t even know… A lady with curly black hair and a long, aquiline face approached him. She introduced herself as Leah, Davinia’s cousin or something like that. He was barely even listening to her. “It was always you. You were her favourite. That’s what she said.” As if Jack needed Leah to tell him that…! Did she honestly suppose he did not already know? It was all he could do to force a smile in return. Davinia’s...
Words: 1712 - Pages: 7
...what extent are things only good because God commands them? (10) To find out the extent to which things are only good because of God commanding them you would first have to decide whether an action or thing becomes good because of God commanding it or if it is good before. Other questions which should be examined include whether the things God has commanded you to do are actually ‘good’ and if the things God has said are wrong and immoral really are. Personally I believe that many things can be good even if God has not declared it to be so and this point has become increasingly obvious throughout time; one of the most renowned and obviously ridiculous examples of things that God has informed us is not ‘good’ is homosexuality. In my opinion this is the best example of why the answer to our question is a ‘very small extent’; God, Christianity and many other religions are absolutely against homosexuality with no exceptions at all taking a strictly deontological view on the matter. Despite the act you would think, not hurting anyone Leviticus 18:22 clearly states that this is an abomination and those who practice homosexuality should be put to death, yet the entire religion of Christianity is based upon love, love of oneself, love of your neighbour, and most importantly love of God. But why should the love of another man be considered evil? God has clearly commanded that humans should not be gay and that the act is wrong, evil, and most poignantly not ‘good’ but then sets the double...
Words: 901 - Pages: 4
...FAGBURE L6CG RELIGIOUS STUDIES (Philosophy of Religion) A. Explain what is meant in the Bible by the phrase “God is good” The goodness of God is first revealed in his actions as a Creator. Genesis chapters 1-3 contain the Creation story. God created the world out of nothing – “creation ex nihilo”. Each act of creation is seen to be good. "And he saw that it was good" (Genesis 1: 10). The end result of God's creation is the Earth and mankind. Everything created was made for man to take control of. God is the image of goodness and as mankind was created in the image of God. (Genesis 1:27, "God created man in his own image.") This tells humans that they are required to be good, as good as God. Exodus 20 describes the Ten Commandments given to the Hebrews by God. Moses received the commandments by revelation from God on the peak of Mount Sinai. They were guidelines given for God’s people to live by. The underlying principle is that humans are to be good and being good means following the Ten Commandments. God's goodness demands that mankind worship only one God and nothing or nobody else "You shall have no other gods before me and you shall not make for yourself an idol." (Exodus 20: 3-4). These commandments show that God is the primary source governing how people should lead their lives because God is entirely good. The Ten Commandments show man how to be good by giving strict guidelines. (Thou shalt not murder; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal). God’s...
Words: 1393 - Pages: 6
...creates a sense of peace and confidence for the patient. Who is this God we should trust? The more we know of God's character, the more we are open to trusting Him during our trials. God wants us to trust Him, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your understanding.” Proverb 3:5 This lesson focuses on three pertinent characteristics of God: His Sovereignty His Wisdom His Goodness God’s Sovereignty Definitions of sovereignty: “Supreme and independent power or authority in a state.” “Sovereignty of God, his absolute right to do all things...
Words: 1435 - Pages: 6
...The main big issue which occurs in problem of evil is that how God and evil can exists together, for instance if God exists, then there should be the prevention of evil, and if evil exists in the world that shows that God does not exist. This problem is logically explained by the Augustine in this paragraph. All powerful, all knowing and perfectly nice God would not allow any evil or suffering in the world. Augustine considers God as “completely innocent of evil”, the almighty all powerful God all good wouldn’t create anything evil or do anything evil. Evil is although a corruption in the good created by the God. It is not anything that God created by itself but it is the beings who did corruption in the good, which leads that to evil. Evil and bad deeds...
Words: 737 - Pages: 3
...The naturally good world has been corrupted by evil, and a God is going to restore the world itself to its nature. Apparently, the restoration is indeed obvious. It is shown through the everlasting teachings of kindness, harmony, and peace through generations of men. Men are smart, but they are selfish and ignorant, making them unable to invent such moral teachings. Hence, those teachings, or Law, come from another source—God—which is far from selfishness. Indeed, Christianity is sensible, for there are evidences that God is making changes in humanity. If there is a God, then who God is by the way? Those who believe in God have always questioned the Supreme Being in whom they believed day by day. Eventually, they start to make the answers...
Words: 1343 - Pages: 6
...What is Good and what is Evil? Recently while I was surfing Pinterest, I ran across an e-card that quoted Einstein: “God did not create evil. Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of God.” This brings me to the question of what is good and what is evil. Good versus Evil is a very subjective topic. I believe what is good and what is evil are based on my beliefs as a Christian and the scriptures of the Bible. In my opinion, good is having the acts and characteristics of God and in contrast, evil is the opposite of good or as Einstein stated: “evil is the absence of God.” To begin with, good is a characteristic of God. For instance, the Holy Bible describes God as love (John 4:8), great, powerful, glorified, victorious and majestic (1Chronicles 29:11 ); all of these can be synonymous with good. In the epistle to the Romans, chapter 8 explained that those who love God will have all things work together for good according to God’s purpose. When a person obtains the same characteristics and acts of God, they become endeavored with noble and righteous characteristics that are based on the unmerited favor of God’s grace. An example of this is the story of Joseph in Genesis. Joseph was greatly loved by his father and was given a coat of many colors as a gift of love. His brothers became envious of Joseph’s special treatment from their father. Joseph’s brothers sold Joseph as a slave. During his time in slavery, God blessed Joseph with ability to...
Words: 972 - Pages: 4
...Euthyphro, “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?” (1) How does this question relate to the Divine Command Theory of morality? (2) What are the philosophical implications associated with each option here? Divine command theory is widely held to be refuted by an argument known as “the Euthyphro dilemma”. This argument is named after Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue, which contains the inspiration for the argument, though not, as is sometimes thought, the argument itself. The Euthyphro dilemma rests on a modernised version of the question asked by Socrates in the Euthyphro: “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?” Each of these two possibilities, the argument runs, leads to consequences that the divine command theorist cannot accept. Whichever way the divine command theorist answers this question, then, it seems that his theory will be refuted. This argument might be formalised as follows: The Euthyphro Dilemma (1) If divine command theory is true then either (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God. (2) If (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are morally good independent of God’s will. (3) It is not the case that morally good acts are morally good independent of God’s...
Words: 1239 - Pages: 5
... 1 Response to Fallacious Solutions According to Robbins (2012), the problem of evil states that if God exists and he is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, he would eliminate all evil from the world. However, since evil obviously exists, as we see people suffering and bad things happening everyday, if God existed, and he was all-knowing and all-powerful there would be no evil in the world (Robbins, 2012). Mackie presents several solutions to the problem of evil that he deems fallacious. I will argue that "Good cannot exist without evil" and "Evil is due to human free will" are in fact adequate solutions to the problem of evil. Mackie (1955), defines God as an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being, meaning God is all-knowing and all-good, and should be able to eliminate all evil from the world, and yet evil exists all around us. Mackie (1955), defines evil as needless suffering. There is human evil, something done by people, to people and natural evil, like natural disasters. The first fallacious solution Mackie (1955), presents is "Good cannot exist without evil." 1. If God is omnipotent, he would be powerful enough to stop all evil. 2. Evil exists. Therefore, God is not omnipotent, or there are limits on God's omnipotence. The first premise states that if God were in fact omnipotent or all-powerful, then he should RESPONSE TO FALLACIOUS SOLUTIONS 2 be...
Words: 1223 - Pages: 5
... 1 Response to Fallacious Solutions According to Robbins (2012), the problem of evil states that if God exists and he is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, he would eliminate all evil from the world. However, since evil obviously exists, as we see people suffering and bad things happening everyday, if God existed, and he was all-knowing and all-powerful there would be no evil in the world (Robbins, 2012). Mackie presents several solutions to the problem of evil that he deems fallacious. I will argue that "Good cannot exist without evil" and "Evil is due to human free will" are in fact adequate solutions to the problem of evil. Mackie (1955), defines God as an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being, meaning God is all-knowing and all-good, and should be able to eliminate all evil from the world, and yet evil exists all around us. Mackie (1955), defines evil as needless suffering. There is human evil, something done by people, to people and natural evil, like natural disasters. The first fallacious solution Mackie (1955), presents is "Good cannot exist without evil." 1. If God is omnipotent, he would be powerful enough to stop all evil. 2. Evil exists. Therefore, God is not omnipotent, or there are limits on God's omnipotence. The first premise states that if God were in fact omnipotent or all-powerful, then he should RESPONSE TO FALLACIOUS SOLUTIONS 2 be...
Words: 1223 - Pages: 5
