And since God's perfect goodness is not entailed by h S , we are led to the hypothesis of a personal being who has no particular reason for doing anything whatsoever—a very hollow, aimless, and possibly terrifying God whose actions, if any, would be inexplicable since h S itself posits no specific personality attributes for God. Cahn also creates two types of good, just as Swinburne categorized two types of evil. John Hick: a critical introduction and reflection. . Minneapolis, Minnesota: Lerner Publishing Group.
Swinburne, as a theologian, should be familiar with this possibility, and at least respond to it as a possible means for god to reveal the bad effects of bad decisions to us without us needing to live through them. I think that a person holding an atheistic view of the world, which is often based on a healthy skeptical attitude, would find great difficulty in overlooking the problems with Swinburne's argument outlined here, especially where the argument purports to be based on premises undisputed by all. Natural evils are bad states of affairs which do not result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents. Last Thursday afternoon, the Theology Society were extremely privileged to welcome Professor Richard Swinburne, Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford. God does not possess foreknowledge otherwise He would have no freedom to act in the future. Providence and the Problem of Evil is the final volume of Richard Swinburne's acclaimed tetralogy on Christian doctrine.
I find Craig's use of demons to justify natural evil rather original, at least. The Existence of God and Evil The problem of evil has been around since the beginning. The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology. Specifically, the laws of nature prevent an individual from fully comprehending or experiencing good without experiencing its opposite. According to Mark Joseph Larrimore, 2001 , The Problem of Evil, pp.
Chapter 13 deals with the argument from religious experience. Dr Philip Irving Mitchell of the notes that some philosophers have cast the pursuit of theodicy as a modern one, as earlier scholars used the problem of evil to support the existence of one particular god over another, explain wisdom, or explain a conversion, rather than to justify God's goodness. Some scholars interpret Yahweh's response as an admission of failure on His part, but He goes on to say He has the power and in His own timing will bring justice in the end. We'll later discover that he has good reason to shy away from explicitly defending substance dualism here, so as to avoid being too overt about his presumptions at the outset of his program. Other prominent voices in the Jewish tradition commenting on the justification of God in the presence of the Holocaust have been the Nobel prize winning author Elie Wiesel and Richard L. Is he both able and willing? An intrinsic good is something that is good by itself, such as love or happiness. I believe they are perfectly compatible.
And Swinburne's argument to God's perfect goodness itself rests on , the position that there are objective moral truths irrespective of subjective moral judgments. The Resurrection of God Incarnate In The Resurrection of God Incarnate 2003 , Richard Swinburne argues that the historical evidence available to contemporary scrutiny adds up to a compelling case for the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate and he rose from the dead: The initial topic of this book is the examination of the evidence for the core physical element of the Resurrection of Jesus understood in the traditional sense — of Jesus being dead for thirty-six hours and then coming to life again in his crucified body in which he then had superhuman powers; e. Is this the best possible world? And no such explanation—such as an account of how God's distinct powers are accomplished by some common but infinitely variable mechanism or property—is anywhere to be found in the book. The Search for God in Ancient Egypt trans. Similarly, for every hidden argument that completely or partially justifies observed evils it is equally likely that there is a hidden argument that actually makes the observed evils worse than they appear without hidden arguments, or that the hidden reasons may result in additional contradictions. Also, without the chance to observe evil outcomes, we have no knowledge as to the likely good or bad effects of a choice, and no means ever of obtaining such knowledge.
New York: Walter De Gruyter. Given the existence of God, he also argues that worship is a great good. When evil is restricted to actions that follow from these sorts of motivations, theorists sometimes say that their subject is pure, radical, diabolical, or monstrous evil. After a period of military service, he went to Oxford as an undergraduate in 1954 with the conviction that being a Christian was the most important thing in his life. Swinburne argues that, although evils are bad, their existence is necessary for the existence of some types of goods. There are some people with mental disorders or those born with retardation that do not have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, or who sometimes suffer from lack of proper judgement. Kant did not attempt or exhaust all theodicies to help address the problem of evil.
This Demon could not exist because there is too much good in the world, and that good does not get an adequate explanation. A theodicy seeks to show that it is reasonable to believe in God despite evidence of evil in the world and offers a framework which can account for why evil exists. Both of these authors discuss interesting motives from both sides of the issue: why and why not God should allow evil. The theodicist cannot explain why God would allow so much pain to be caused to humans by natural disasters. I believe that evil exists in order to teach humans virtue that God has created.
Here the terminus of explanation is nothing more than the intention to bring about E. One of the philosophers who discusses the problem is Richard Gale. German philosopher 1864—1920 saw theodicy as a social problem, based on the human need to explain puzzling aspects of the world. In this sense, the evil gods could be blamed for misfortune, while the good gods could be petitioned with prayer and sacrifices to make things right. An outline of the argumentative structure of the book follows. Again, h S has no scriptures nor, I should add, any adherents in the traditional religious sense. That is a separate hypothesis that needs to be verified on its own merits.
Hence, the problem of evil is not a good objection to the existence of God. This paper examines the rational argument against the existence of God, to show that there is not sufficient evidence or comprehensive argument for the existence of God. Nevertheless, the evaluation of hypotheses in terms of their simplicity plays a constantly recurring and central role in his arguments to follow. Mental events are mainly caused by brain-events, but are distinct from them. He argued that human goodness develops through the experience of evil and suffering. Where appropriate, I will explain within the outline which elements are necessary to the argument and how they relate to each other. Professor argues that ancient civilizations, such as the ancient , , , and held beliefs that may have enabled them to deal with the concept of theodicy differently.
The Jewish thinkers have argued that either God did not care about the torture and suffering in the world He created—which means He is not omnibenevolent, or He did not know what was happening—which means He is not omniscient. Part two examines the life and teaching of Jesus. Downer's Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press. If a hypothesis is to adequately explain some phenomenon, we must have grounds for confidence in the truth of this hypothesis; otherwise we might contrive any outlandish ad hoc hypothesis merely to fit the phenomenon without any regard for its truth. Further, in Hinduism are neither eternal nor omnipotent nor omniscient nor omnibenevolent. These arguments are not very convincing. Even more perplexing is the case where the guest of room 1 moves to room 2, that of room 2 to room 4, that of room 3 to room 6, and so on, freeing all the odd numbered rooms into which a countably infinite set of new guests may then lodge.