Second: 1) God created every thing; 2) God did not create evil; 3) therefore, evil is not a thing. The key to success here, is the truthfulness of two premises. If Augustine can offer evidence through natural theology that God exists as Creator and also that God is good, making everything He created also good, then the conclusion—evil is not. The existence of god: 5 ways: things change, and things cause change; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself; causes cannot go back to infinity; every quality has a cause and god is the cause of goodness etc; things tend to act toward what is best so must be directed by intelligent being.
Dialogue On Good Evil And The Existence Of God Pdf Writers
Dialogue of Good, Evil, and the Existence of God by John Perry
In John Perry's book Dialogue on Good, Evil and the Existence of God, he used three characters in the dialogue in order to clarify the positions of the three characters (Weirob, Miller, and Cohen), the arguments they provide in support their positions and the 'end state' of their discussion. This allows us to examine our understanding of the good, evil and the existence of God.
Perry shows a clear position of Weirob, Miller, and Cohen. Weirob is a philosopher who is not a Christian. She does not believe God exist. She only believe evil exist without God. She thinks if God really exists in this world, then God is a monster (evil) because God lets her suffered. She challenges with Miller's belief and claims that there is no God exist. She wants Miller to proof there is possibility of his beliefs. Miller is a Christian who believes in God. He thinks evil and God can both exist in this world. Therefore, he has to convince Weirob to believe there is possibility that God and evil are both exist in order to win the debate and also pray for her. Cohen is a neutral one between them. He is the judge. He helps Weirob and Miller to figure out what is their own point of view all the times and also he raises some useful ideas to solve their arguments. It seems that he is so helpful in this debate.
Weirob does not believe in God, so she does not admit Miller to pray for her. First, Weirob claims, 'how in the world does a prayer help?' (p.2) to raise the debate of good, evil and the existence of God. She thinks Miller simply would be communication to his omniscient God for what God already knows, thereby wasting God's time and his ...
... middle of paper ...
...te. But he is really helpful to them because he raises some useful ideas during the debate. Finally, he does not really show up what is his thinking, but his ideas are very convincing us to think he believes there is God exists.
After reading this book, I know the author Perry tries to use these dialogues of three characters to explain that we have freedom to choose our own beliefs and also the definition of good and evil can be difference because different people will have different point of views. Especially other creatures and human maybe have different definition in good and evil, joy and suffering. Furthermore, he convince us that there is no inconsistent between good and evil, suffering and pleasure because two things seem contradiction to each other but actually they could be fit together with an actual providing of a possible big picture.
In John Perry's book Dialogue on Good, Evil and the Existence of God, he used three characters in the dialogue in order to clarify the positions of the three characters (Weirob, Miller, and Cohen), the arguments they provide in support their positions and the 'end state' of their discussion. This allows us to examine our understanding of the good, evil and the existence of God.
Perry shows a clear position of Weirob, Miller, and Cohen. Weirob is a philosopher who is not a Christian. She does not believe God exist. She only believe evil exist without God. She thinks if God really exists in this world, then God is a monster (evil) because God lets her suffered. She challenges with Miller's belief and claims that there is no God exist. She wants Miller to proof there is possibility of his beliefs. Miller is a Christian who believes in God. He thinks evil and God can both exist in this world. Therefore, he has to convince Weirob to believe there is possibility that God and evil are both exist in order to win the debate and also pray for her. Cohen is a neutral one between them. He is the judge. He helps Weirob and Miller to figure out what is their own point of view all the times and also he raises some useful ideas to solve their arguments. It seems that he is so helpful in this debate.
Weirob does not believe in God, so she does not admit Miller to pray for her. First, Weirob claims, 'how in the world does a prayer help?' (p.2) to raise the debate of good, evil and the existence of God. She thinks Miller simply would be communication to his omniscient God for what God already knows, thereby wasting God's time and his ...
... middle of paper ...
...te. But he is really helpful to them because he raises some useful ideas during the debate. Finally, he does not really show up what is his thinking, but his ideas are very convincing us to think he believes there is God exists.
After reading this book, I know the author Perry tries to use these dialogues of three characters to explain that we have freedom to choose our own beliefs and also the definition of good and evil can be difference because different people will have different point of views. Especially other creatures and human maybe have different definition in good and evil, joy and suffering. Furthermore, he convince us that there is no inconsistent between good and evil, suffering and pleasure because two things seem contradiction to each other but actually they could be fit together with an actual providing of a possible big picture.
The Nature Of God
The Existence of God and Evil 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…show more content…
The laws of nature also attempt to defend God. A theist claims that the laws of nature creates evil, and it is irrational for God to intervene in every case of suffering and danger. If God did become involved, it would be impossible for anything to be predictable. In other words, nature and the cause and effect that people know would not be consistent or reliable. Johnson agrees that God’s involvement in every disaster would be wrong. As Johnson states, “To argue that continued miraculous intervention by God would be wrong is like insisting that one should never use salt because ingesting five pounds of it would be fatal” (Pojman 123). However, God should step in to stop or prevent the most horrific of disasters. Where is the line drawn, though? Johnson says it should be on the side of intervening more than not. Even if it is not known where to draw the line, no excuse should be made to not interfere in instances of pure evil. Thus, the laws of nature do not excuse the coexistence of God and evil. God’s “higher morality” is the last defense Johnson inspects. This morality is only followed by God and is what judges His actions. “Higher morality”, though, is unlike the morality on Earth. To allow evil, God’s morality would imply that what humans call good is evil, and what is evil in this world is good. Thus the two moralities are opposites. Since God’s “higher morality” is the opposite, humans can have no understanding of it, or as Johnson states,
The laws of nature also attempt to defend God. A theist claims that the laws of nature creates evil, and it is irrational for God to intervene in every case of suffering and danger. If God did become involved, it would be impossible for anything to be predictable. In other words, nature and the cause and effect that people know would not be consistent or reliable. Johnson agrees that God’s involvement in every disaster would be wrong. As Johnson states, “To argue that continued miraculous intervention by God would be wrong is like insisting that one should never use salt because ingesting five pounds of it would be fatal” (Pojman 123). However, God should step in to stop or prevent the most horrific of disasters. Where is the line drawn, though? Johnson says it should be on the side of intervening more than not. Even if it is not known where to draw the line, no excuse should be made to not interfere in instances of pure evil. Thus, the laws of nature do not excuse the coexistence of God and evil. God’s “higher morality” is the last defense Johnson inspects. This morality is only followed by God and is what judges His actions. “Higher morality”, though, is unlike the morality on Earth. To allow evil, God’s morality would imply that what humans call good is evil, and what is evil in this world is good. Thus the two moralities are opposites. Since God’s “higher morality” is the opposite, humans can have no understanding of it, or as Johnson states,