Why I Exist: God's Reason for Creation

Why I Exist Research Paper
People from different cultures and civilizations, all around the world believe in some kind of a holy
presence. Where did this belief in a holy being come from? There must exist a being that is causing
this belief. This certain being is I, your God.
I am intellectually indeterminate, possess genuine optionality, and I have bestowed upon you the
ability to have faith, and through faith, you have been able to believe that I exist. But what is my
reason for existence? This question needs to be answered in order for you to understand why the
world exists, for without me there would be no world.
I exist, because my existence is good. The world you live in, the universe you wonder upon, and the
humans you interact with on the daily are the outcomes of my divine doing and without my
existence, none of this would be possible. There exists a world because I have caused it to exist. I
did not create the world because it was needed nor was it created to solve any weaknesses. In fact, I
created the world because its creation was something of value to me. I wanted the beauty of the
world to be seen by others, and I wanted the creation of the world to showcase my glory. Also, the
world was created in order to have my image represented through humans. I wanted the things that
were a part of me, such as truth and goodness, to be part of you. Furthermore, the world exists in
order for morally imperfect beings to exist. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
I am of high moral goodness and I wanted to create this world in order for its beauty to be witnessed
and respected by humans. By being able to see what I see, you are able to appreciate my glory and
help others appreciate me for the holy being that I am. Through creation, I was able to showcase my
power, wisdom, and goodness, and the world exists for my
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Predestination Essay
Predestination
Predestination, in the dictionary, is said to be "the doctrine that God in consequence of his
foreknowledge of all events infallibly guides those who are destined for salvation." Scripture has 2
very good passages for defining what predestination is: Jeremiah 1:5 which says "Before I formed
you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to
the nations." God is talking about Jeremiah in this passage and how God chose him before time; he
was predestined for his job. Romans 8:28–30 "And we know that all things work together for good
to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did
foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
That God decreed to leave some in the common misery and not to bestow on them living faith and
the grace of conversion. Calvin also believes that God predestined everything for everything that it
does, such that God predestined me to be writing this report right now for my religion class, so that
this isn't my own free will but it was God's set plan for me. Zanchius, a Reform Theologian, writes
that there is most certainly a double predestination and gives passages to prove through God's Word
that there is no other way. II Cor. 4:3 "If our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing."
I Peter 2:8 "They stumble because they disobey the message–which is also what they were destined
for." II Peter 2:12b "…They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught
and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish." Jude 1:4a "For certain men who were marked
out for condemnation long ago have secretly slipped among you." He concludes his arguments by
saying that God could not erase a name that has been placed in the book of life or add a name
because it was from eternity. He quotes Luther with, "This is the very thing that razes the doctrine of
free–will from its foundation, to wit, that God's eternal love of some men and hatred of others is
immutable and cannot be reversed."
The truth about predestination is that God gives man a free will that he doesn't take control of or
manipulate. So an unbeliever has a choice, he can either accept

The Belief Of Religion And Religion
The belief in religion is a shared trait among much of humanity's existence. Since the inception of
religion, humans have debated and even waged wars over which of their faith's to be true throughout
history. Religion had been often used to explicate natural processes which, at the time, were
unexplainable to humans, and to establish moral boundaries for followers to abide by, as well as
unifying people under one common belief. With the progression of science and philosophy, though,
a new side of the debate has arisen recently–the questioning a god's conceptual coherence, thus if
religion in general is true. As humanity progressed, many of the concepts of religion evolved. The
majority initially believing in polytheistic religions, humanity eventually shifted to monotheistic
denominations. With most of humanity believing in a one–god system, the traits of a higher power
had been established. The first premise of which is God having unlimited power, or omnipotence.
God holds no bounds, and all things are possible under his will. Second, God must be omniscient, or
all knowing, as all his actions are with full consideration of every variable. Lastly, it is determined
that God must be benevolent, acting only for the good of all of his subjects. An individual can only
be called God if he holds every trait. In response to God's determined stipulations, many have
referenced his last condition, benevolence, to show that his existence to be untrue. Identified as the
Argument from

Miss Brill And The Lottery Analysis
Notably in point of view, the narrator proceeds to interject between the audience and the characters.
Based on the author's preference, the readers often become conscious of the way the characters can
be perceived and the subjective premise of significances within the story. In such cases, the short
stories "Miss Brill" and "The Lottery" provide a third person point of view that encaptures itself
within the expositional phase of the plot. There is a layer of perceptiveness that entitles itself into
interpretations of events based on the behavior of the characters and the overall environment that the
author positions itself in. Deliberately, there is a condescending decision of what the author wants
you to know and what they wish for you to interpret yourself.
Particularly in "Miss Brill," the author Katherine Mansfield, uses third person omniscient point of
view in significance to the empowered theme of delusional loneliness. She utilizes the vocation of
an "all knowing" bases to justify the true abhorrence of Miss Brill herself. As exclaimed in the plot,
"They were all on stage. They weren't only the audience, not only looking on; they were acting.
Even she had a part and came every Sunday. No doubt somebody would have noticed if she hadn't
been there; she was part of the performance after all." (Mansfield 177). Considering the amount of
importance she had displayed herself in, the omniscient point of view shifts toward the coherence of
Miss Brill's implied emotions and

Morally Perfect God: The Logical Possibility Of God
In deducing the mere logical possibility of a God, it is important that one first delves into exactly
what characteristics this being is said to have; mainly what is it this being can and can not do.
Religions touting a singular entity, God, to be there creation of the world, hold several interesting
beliefs with regards to this beings characteristics, mainly that God is Omnipotent, omniscient, and is
morally perfect. Religions holding a singular God to be responsible for creation have a similar
belief, God in his perfect goodness, used his powers omnipotence (which allow him to do anything,
created a world, which he knows everything about, as he is also omniscient, knowing everything.
Some of these characteristics have very clear consequences ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
A more extreme definition will first be considered, in which God is seen as a being which can do
anything, regardless of logical possibility; triangles may be made to have no angle, and
mathematical equations may be changed in what ever way desired. Such a requirement seems to be
a contradiction, as requiring an agent to do that which is impossible is a contradiction, as by
definition what is I'm possible can not be done under any circumstance; to abandon logic is to
abandon every method by which humans can come to understand, defeating the entire process,
whilst also placing unrealistic demands upon such a being (omnipotence source). It is therefore
more accurate to define this argument in the realm of the possible, leaving the possibility that an
omnipotent being can do anything possible, whenever they so choose. Such a claim leads the
discussion back to that of the presence of evil, as an omnipotent being should be able to do that
which they choose in regards to creating it. A possible reconciliation may be made, as omnipotence
simply means maximal power, or in other words power which can not be surpassed by another;
meaning they are not actually required to do all things possible either, they must only be the most
powerful, which does not preclude another from being able to do something he can not, but only that
such a being is not surpassed or

The Two Kinds of Evil According to Augustine Essay
God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, which makes us wonder what kind of morally
sufficient reason justifies God to allow evil. We know that evil exists in our world, but so does God,
so would God be the source of evil as well as good? We have established that God is the omnipotent
and benevolent free creator of the world, but suffering and evil exist. Is God unable to prevent evil?
If so, he would not be omnipotent. Is He able to prevent the evil in our world but unwilling? If this
were then case then he wouldn't be benevolent. A Persian thinker, Mani, suggested that the answer to
this question was a kind of duality between the good and evil. This pluralistic view of the good and
evil in our world would suggest that God is ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Is all evildoing due to inordinate desires? For instance, when you kill someone out of self–defense,
would that be considered an inordinate desire? Two laws determine the criteria by which we are
allowed to kill: the eternal law and the temporal law . When we give in to our lustful desires, we
receive temporal punishment, which is when we suffer for attaching ourselves to things that are lost
against our will. Therefore, humans are only susceptible to temporal punishment if we commit evil
acts through lust . Most of the time, our temporal punishments are results of evil actions except in a
few cases when eternal law coincides with the temporal law. For instance, if a person using self–
defense kills someone then they would be excused from their sins in the eternal world if they were
true in their actions, whether or not they are proven innocent by temporal law . He also comments
on a soldier in war and explaining his action of killing an enemy is "then acting as an agent of the
law, and thus easily does his duty without lust" . Both the eternal and temporal laws guarantee a
perfect order, but what exactly does this mean? Augustine says that there is a hierarchy of value with
God above all, then comes humans because we have rational thought and will to live well. After
humans are animals which will to live, but do not reason, then there are plants, which live but do not
will to do so or possess the ability to reason . Therefore, a

Why Is There Evil Do Humans Have Free Will Analysis
The article, Why is There Evil? Do Humans Have Free Will, presents inquisitive arguments to
deliver Thomas Aquinas' claims on the attributes or nature of God as omniscient (all–knowing),
omnipotent (all–powerful), and omnibenevolent (all–good) in reference to the problems of evils and
free will. Aquinas intention was to produce rational sense on basic Christianity beliefs such as
attributes of God. Although these attributes are simple and straightforward to understand, these
characteristics seem inconsistent in terms of evil and free will concepts. Throughout the article,
various arguments are presented to devise resolutions and to provide valid reasons that these
attributes are logically true. Subsequently, these arguments lead me to more reasonable
understanding of my own beliefs. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This argument continues to questioning God's capability to vanish evil (omnipotent), capability to
know Satan's actions (omniscient), and capability to desire cessation of evil (omnibenevolent). As
the logic continues, I feel that the analysis shows depletion of faith. It shows lack of faith because
this argument implies that the justification of God's nature/attributes are dependent upon the evil
existence. I understand that philosophers and critics have to use these analogies in order to find
truth. However, there are other evidences that prove God's all–powerful, all–knowing, and all–good
attributes. The miracles of healing terminal diseases that doctors cannot explain is just one example.
God's attributes are seen everyday through his creations, the sun, the night and day, the air we
breath, etc. We witness and feel His attributes daily, 24/7, 365 days,

Essay on Letters from a Skeptic
Summary: Dr. Gregory Boyd is a professor of theology at Bethel College. He attended such
universities as the University of Minnesota, Yale Divinity School, and Princeton Theological
Seminary. As well as being a professor he is a preaching pastor at Woodland Hills Church in St.
Paul, Minnesota, and has authored three books and several articles. This particular book is a
dialogue between he and his father, Edward Boyd. Edward lives in Florida and worked for 35 years
in sales management. He has six kids, 15 grandchildren, and nine great–grandchildren. Gregory
attempted for years to try and convert his father to Christianity without any success. About the time
he felt like giving up on his father, he felt the Holy Spirit leading him ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
For the most part I really appreciated Gregory's answers and found them to be very insightful, as
well as theologically correct. I liked his defense of God when Edward blamed Him for all the evil in
the world. I also like how he explained the freedom that God has chosen to give each of us, and that
that very freedom, which was given so that true love could exist, must also bear with it the
possibility of evil. Gregory said in one of his responses "If we have the potential to oppress or slay
millions, it's because we also have the potential to liberate and love millions." I thought Gregory did
an exceptional job of explaining salvation to his father as well. He gave great evidence that the Bible
was, in fact, true and reliable. I, personally, was very pleased with the apologetic effort of Dr. Boyd.
There were just a couple of things that, I did not necessarily disagree with, but that definitely
challenged my way of thinking. The first is about God's omniscience. In Terry Bowland's Romans
class, while discussing Calvinism, we went over this a little bit. My understanding of what Dr.
Bowland believes (I am sure he would explain it better) is that God does know the future. He knows
everything. Before I was born He knew the choices I would be making today. He did not predestine
me to make these decisions, but because he is Almighty God, He simply knows the choices that I
will make. That all made sense to me until I

Clarification: The Nature Of God
God is not worthy of worship
I realize the nature of this topic is likely to garner the contempt of many. I respectfully ask that you
spare me any personal attacks. I sincerely want to discuss this topic. I am not motivated to do so out
of a desire to disrespect anyone or their beliefs. Rather, I desire this discussion as a chance to share
ideas.
Clarification: The Nature of God
Before I begin, I want to make clear that in this essay, I am addressing what is known as the God of
Christianity. The reason for this distinction is largely because the Christian God is the one with
whom I am most often confronted. Of course, I understand Christianity is fragmented when it comes
to doctrine and beliefs. However, notwithstanding the difference in doctrine between Christian
denominations, it seems reasonable to say that on balance, Christians believe in what is known as
the Tri–Omni God. That is to say, they believe in a God that is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and
Omnibenevolent. For the sake of clarity, I will briefly expand on what seems to be intended by these
attributes
Omnipotent is a reference to power. That is to say, one that is omnipotent is all powerful. For
instance, Christians often refer to their God as the "Almighty." Indeed, Mathew 19:26 reads "With
God, all things are possible."(1)Demonstrations of this supposed power include; healing the sick,
causing a virgin birth, destruction, great floods, raising the dead, and creating the earth itself. C.S.
Lewis, perhaps one

Psychology Exam Essay
PHIL–1600, Exam 6, Instructor: Chapman 2
1. If God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, why is it odd (to say the least!)
that bad things happen? Make sure to answer this question in terms of God's omnipotence,
omniscience, and omnibenevolence.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, so he should be able to prevent anything bad
from happening. o Omnipotent: God is all powerful, and therefor would be able to prevent any bad
thing from happening. o Omniscient: God is all knowing, and would be able to stop bad things
before they happen. o Omnibenevolent: God is all good and all loving, and, therefore, would not
want any bad stuff to happen.
2. There are two broad sorts of evil or bad stuff that happen in ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
These are things that occur in our world and effect humans, they are things that can be caused by
humans or things like natural disasters.
Supernatural evils are cosmological evils, things that are far beyond all terrestrial things. These
things are all on the level of God, and the only things god needs to prevent.
3. Lay out and explain the Logical Problem of Evil against the existence of God.
Logical Problem of Evil o If God exists there is no bad stuff because God is an omnipotent,
omniscient, and omnibenevolent being. With these characteristics, God should prevent all bad things
from happening. o There is bad stuff in the world. o Therefore, God doesn't exist because if he did,
he would prevent bad stuff.
4. The Logical Problem of Evil is "logical" because it implicitly claims that there is a logical
contradiction between two propositions. What is a logical contradiction? What are these two
propositions that are supposedly logically contradictory? Why does Plantinga claim that these two
propositions are not actually logically contradictory (don't lay out Plantinga's whole theory–just
answer why Plantinga says there is no actual contradiction here).

The Omnipotence And Omniscience Of God Essay
William Maillis
PHL 111
Reaction Paper #2
Professor M. Scott Mayberry
13 December 2016
The Omnipotence and Omniscience of God
Does God exist in the universe, or does the universe exist in God? This is the question mankind
must answer when we discuss the attributes of God. Many times humanity attempts to place God in
the universe and placing universal laws and limitations on God, but God is not bound by the laws of
the universe, because the universe exists in God. If it true that God has created everything than how
can he be limited by anything? Only God could limit Himself, by His own choice to do so. Thomas
V. Morris in his article on the omnipotence of God asks; can God do everything that is logically
possible? Who's logic? Are we made in the Image and Likeness of God, or are we attempting to
make Him in ours? The difficulty is this: as humans, we are imperfect, with our viewpoints so
limited –is it God we connect to, or merely our own impression of Him? As imperfect humans, we
know only ourselves. We connect to others, but we can never truly go into anybody's mind but our
own. Every "person" exists in a specific manner, completely immersed in his individual awareness,
which is egocentric and exclusive. As human beings, we look towards reason and logic to try to
understand existence and our place in it. However, there is no human being who is omniscient, so
therefore our logic can be flawed, so what is logically possible?
In the article; Omniscience and human freedom: a

If God Knows What We Are Going to Do, He Has No Right to...
If God knows what we are going to do, he has no right to reward the good and punish the wicked.
Discuss
The idea that God gave humans free will is one that is essential to the Christian faith. This is
highlighted in Genesis. If we were to believe this concept consequently, we would believe that we
are morally responsible for our actions. The idea of omnipotence logically requires God knowing
what we will do before we do it. This is a problem with the idea of free will, as this may mean that
we do not entirely have freedom. It could be argued that God has no right to reward and punish if he
is able to foresee what will happen. In the Bible there are many passages which demonstrate God
rewarding and punishing.
The God of classical ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Hell not only seems to be a very harsh reality, but this concept also clashes with the goodness of
God. This extreme divine justice is incompatible with the idea of an all loving and perfectly good
God. It is written in Chronicles that 'He is good; his love endures for ever'. However the destruction
of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in divine punishment for their wickedness, Gods participation
in the Battle of Jericho and Noah and the flood all challenge the belief of Gods omnibenevolence
and therefore his right to reward and punish.
An alternative problem to this theory regards God's omnipotenence. If God is aware of our past,
present and future it is then not possible for us to do anything on our own accord. Omniscience and
free will are clearly incompatible. They are many resolutions to this problem; although some
thinkers may believe that free will is not possible and that this is only apparent some thinkers
believe that the two different states of an eternal God is a solution. Firstly, God as timeless may
resolve this problem as if God is outside of time it could be interpreted that he knows what we will
do but does not cause our actions as he is unchanging and outside of time. Secondly, God being
everlasting may also be a solution. If God moves through time with his creation that he knows
everything that is logically possible to know. God may know our actions but does not cause them.
This is an important factor as one attribute of God offers

Boethius Was Successful in His Argument That God Rewards...
'Boethius was successful in his argument that God rewards and punishes justly.' Discuss (35)
Boethius was a philosopher teaching at the end of the Roman empire, in his 40's he was arrested for
suspected conspiracy with the Eastern Roman Empire and was eventually put to death at the age of
about 44/45. Whilst in prison Boethius wrote his book, 'The Consolation of Philosophy' where he
discusses in great depth with Lady Philosophy issues with God's omniscience. In his writings,
Boethius identifies an issue with God's foreknowledge, our personal autonomy and the impact of
how we are to be judged as when we enter the life after this. He identifies that if God has
foreknowledge and knows our future, He then knows what we are going to do which ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
However there is another definition of which Boethius thought was unsuitable. God is eternal and he
has no begging or no end, he always has existed and continues to do so. Boethius rejects this as he
can't see how a temporal God can judge someone if he experiences time himself. On the other hand
Boethius didn't consider the flaws of his definition of eternal God; a God that is outside the category
of time is one whom cannot be personal, this also means that it doesn't fit in with the traditional
religious view of God who keeps his covenant with his people and sends his son to save us. But it
also has its strengths such as it maintains the majority of the attributes of God, such as incorporeal
and immutable.
Boethius concluded from his characterization of an eternal god that God is like a bird flying over a
man walking down the path, the bird can see where the man has been, where he is and where he is
about to go all at once. This is a power that God is able to use due to him being outside of time, he
can see everyone's past present and future simultaneously. His knowledge is total however not
causal.
Boethius expands on his idea of divine foreknowledge and goes onto explain the different types of
necessity; simple and contingent. Simple necessity is related to a person's nature so for example
"man is a rational animal." Whereas conditional necessity isn't tied to the objects nature so

Miss Brill Reality
The short story "Miss Brill," written by Katherine Mansfield, is narrated in the third person by the
limited omniscient titular character, who also mainly acts as the story's protagonist. By telling the
story through this point of view, through the eyes and in the head of Miss Brill, the reader can
imagine in their own head what she is seeing, feeling, and doing. The great effects of the
omniscience of her character help the reader dive into Miss Brills own reality inside her mind, and
expands her feelings into the reaches of the readers own emotional connections. Self–realization
lays at the heart of this short story. With the help of the third person limited omniscient point of
view, Miss Brill is shown to often live within her own form of ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Miss Brill continues her everlasting people watching and make–believe creating ways as she sees
"an ermine toque and a gentleman in gray meet just in front of her." (99) This new woman is
delighted at the chance of company with this man. He, however, does not feel the same way as the
woman did. He "slowly breathed a great deep puff into her face, and even while she was still talking
and laughing, flicked the match away and walked on." (99) The band plays a more soft and tender
beat as Miss Brill deeply sympathizes for this woman, watching her as she is thinking "even the
band seemed to know what she was feeling." (99) Miss Brill instantly reverts back to her actress
character, trying to avoid vulnerability brought on by the woman in the ermine toque. This doesn't
last long, though, as a young couple sat down on the bench where the elderly couple had been sitting
moments before. The young man refers to Miss Brill as "a stupid old thing," saying "Why does she
come here at all – who wants her? Why doesn't she keep her silly old mug at home? ... It's her fu–fur
which is so funny." (100) These hurtful comments made by the young couple immediately cause
Miss Brill to fall out of her actress character. As the protectiveness of that character and her self–
deceit crumble, Miss Brill is

Marlowe’s Presentation of the Gothic Protagonist Dr....
In Christopher Marlowe's 'Dr. Faustus', Faustus is presented as the Gothic protagonist. Typical
features of a Gothic protagonist include things such as: being ambitious, have an inability to make
decision and they are typically easily persuaded amongst others.
Marlow does present Faustus as someone with these features; however Faustus does not have all of
the features of the ideal gothic protagonist.
Faustus is an ambitious character. In the first Chorus he is compared to Icarus as "his waxen wings
did mount above his reach", much like in the story of Icarus whose waxen wings melted when he
believed he could fly away from Crete and reach the sun due to his high ambition. This also shows
that Faustus is self–conceited because he believes ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
For example, he wishes to "make swift Rhine circle fair Wittenberg" and "make the moon drop from
her sphere". This is typical of the Gothic protagonist because they typically wish to achieve that of
the impossible, and something that only God would be able to do, which traditionally leads to their
downfall.
However, although Faustus possesses great ambition, he lacks the sympathetic characteristic of
Gothic protagonists. This is because he "despairs in God" and turns to "trust in Beelzebub". This
would have been as shocking to an Elizabethan audience, the time in which the play was written, as
the audience would have been part of a Protestant Christian community, and atheism would have
been greatly frowned upon and atheists would have been scorned. To the modern day audience
atheism is generally accepted by many people and has become more common, however turning to
the devil can still be considered greatly shocking and as this is undoubtedly one of the centrifugal
points of the play, Faustus will lack sympathy from the audience; even a modern one.
A further characteristic that Faustus displays which would indeed be expected of a Gothic
protagonist is that he is indeed of a profound nobility and high social status. This high nobility is
also self–achieved as he was "born base of stock". This high status gives him a high degree of self–
conceit which is shown when he discusses how he wishes to cure all diseases, make man

Attributes Of God Within Classical Christian Theism
Chapter 2 Attributes of God in Classical Christian Theism
We continue our study of the history of God by looking at His attributes from a number of different
viewpoints. We will first examine the view of Classical Theism, then the view of Freewill Theism,
and finally that of Open Theism. We begin by defining Classical Theism, also called traditional
theism or Augustinian theism.
In a section entitled, "The Classical Christian Concept of God," Francis Beckwith gives a short
definition of Classical Theism in See the God's Fall, 59–60:
Classical theism is the theism that has been believed in by most theists in Western civilization. In
particular, classical theism holds that God is (1) personal and disembodied, (2) the creator and
sustainer of all things, (3) omnipotent, (4) omniscient, (5) omniscient, (6) immutable and eternal, (7)
perfectly good and the source of all moral values, (8) necessary, (9) the only God, (10) infinite, (11)
sovereign over all things, and (12) knowable but incomprehensible. .
In this paper, we will discuss only 5 of these attributes: omnipotence, immutability, impassibility,
timelessness and omniscience. Gregory Boyd summarizes these 5 attributes in his book Is God to
Blame? (pp 42–43)
First, many theologians have assumed that if God is all–powerful, omnipotent, which the Bible
clearly teaches (e.g., 1Chron 29:11; Jer 32:17; Mt 19:26; Rev 1:8; 19:6), that nothing in his creation
can ever thwart his will. At the very least, it is reasoned, God

The Logical Problem Of Evil Essay
In this paper I will discuss the logical problem of evil and how it seems to reject the existence of
God as an omni–3 being. I will first layout the logical problem of evil, and then I will explain why it
succeeds in disproving the existence of God. I do this through pointing out the contradictions
between the definition of God as an omni–3 being and the problem of redeemed and unredeemed
evil. As well as by proving that admittance of evil in any way when in reference to the choices of
God invalidates the omni–3 definition of God. I will address claims from those who believe in God
about justification of evil as well as the concept and depth of human understanding.
The logical problem of evil is almost as old as the concept of an omni–3 being as the one true God.
God in this context being a mix of the Judeo–Christian belief that God is the Greatest Conceivable
Being (GCB). Being the GCB implies 3 things: God is all good (Omnibenevolent), all knowing
(Omniscient), and all powerful (Omnipotent), this is commonly referred to as omni–3. This
argument boils down to a simple three part argument structure:
1. If God, as an omni–3 being, exists then evil can not exist at all.
2. Evil clearly exists.
3. As a result, God as omni–3 can not exist.
This is a very simple argument; premise, interference, implied contradiction, and a conclusion. It is
simply through an application of modus ponens that, some believe, we are able to disprove the
existence of God as an Omni–3 being.

The Philosophy Of Human Nature
Jack Dufresne
Prof. Brandon
Philosophy of Human Nature
1 December 2015
Freedom of the Will
The will, in its simplest form, is the ability for one to control one's own actions. Through the will,
the morality of the action is entirely decided by the doer. Augustine professes the will simply
permits the doer to do evil. In Socrates' assertion, free will is contingent on self–control because
without it, one can find oneself enslaved to a material thing or desire. Based on reading and prior
knowledge, it can be deduced that the only thing that can truly keep one from vice is free will.
As Augustine examines certain events in his own life, he tries to analyze human nature as a whole,
and explores why human beings, even children, have the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Augustine feels while one's choices are ultimately part of God 's plan; one should still have the free
will to choose to turn away from him. The intellect leads the souls will, but the will does not always
follow1. This is part of how one can knowingly do wrong. One knows what should be done, but one
can also knowingly act against this2. Intellect may have the truth, one's desires may press with what
one wants to do, but the will ultimately chooses.
Socrates ' view on free will was the drive for self–control. He believed the unexamined life is not
worth living. For Socrates, free will is impossible without self–control, for unbridled passions can
remove one's agency. His view in the Republic (as told by Plato) is in conflict with the libertarian
view, where people who are "slaves" to their desires have the right to self–determination, regardless
of what their idea of the best life is. The reason for his disagreement with libertarian free will in the
Republic is justness requires reflection3. This leads to conclude actions are entirely determined by
beliefs of what is the good, and beliefs of what is the good is determined by knowledge.
Socrates believes, in a similar way, nobody willingly chooses to do wrong. Like Augustine, he
advocates doing wrong always harms the wrongdoer and that nobody seeks to bring harm upon
themselves. In this view, all wrongdoing is

Sir Thomas Aquinas And William Paley 's Argument On The...
Sir Thomas Aquinas and William Paley present two arguments for the existence of God. Aquinas
defines God as omnibenevolent (all good) for his argument, and he continues in "The Five Ways" to
present arguments to prove God's existence (Rosen et al. 11). Paley, on the other hand, primarily
defines God as a designer worthy of our admiration for his work (Rosen et al. 27). During class
discussion, defining God involved three major qualities: omnipotence, omniscience, and
omnibenevolence. Both Aquinas and Paley are attempting to prove the existence of the (Christian)
God associated with these qualities. Although Aquinas's "Cosmological Argument" and Paley's
"Argument from Design" have different premises, both have a similar logical gap in their ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
As discussed in class, modern scientific research provides alternatives to Aquinas's presumed
necessities. An infinite series of causes no longer seems impossible. This research disproves
Aquinas 's third premise (P3), and his argument for God as the first cause is consequently
unnecessary. Furthermore, the fourth premise still has a logical gap between the first cause and God.
Aquinas offers no explanation as to why the first cause must be God or a supernatural being at all.
The first cause may just as easily be a spontaneous event, or a first cause may not exist at all in an
infinite universal cycle.
William Paley has a similar logical gap in his "Argument from Design," but he attempts to address
this issue in "Chapter V." Previously in this argument, Paley attests that the nature of humans and
their parts implies a designer. From the discussion in class, Paley's argument can be organized as
follows: P1. Artifacts like watches are complex and have a purpose. P2. Artifacts like watches have
designers. P3. The human eye is complex and has a purpose. C1. Therefore, the human eye probably
has a designer.
This kind of argument is analogical, and it does not prove certainty by its nature. In the conclusion,
"probably" is still a necessity. Certainty about the relevance of the traits of design cannot be proven
in the same manner of other logical arguments. Complexity and purposefulness are not the only
traits

What Makes A Supremely Perfect Being?
A Supremely Perfect Being is one who is Omnipotent, Transcendent, Omniscient, Omnipresent and
Omni benevolent. However, these attributes in cohere with each other for many reasons, such as
Omniscience and Omnipotence. The meaning of Incoherency is when there is a lack of logical
organisation in the way something is thought out or expressed that makes it difficult to understand,
for example it is difficult to understand a bachelor to be a married man. To say a Supremely Perfect
Being is Omnipotent (all–powerful) brings the consequence that they can do everything including
the logically impossible such us bring it about that two plus two equals four, or make a four–sided
triangle. Let's assume the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
A solution would be to say that a Supremely Perfect Being is omnipotent, is to hold that they can do
everything that is logically possible and consistent with their nature. Although, it is still hard to
grasp how a Supremely Perfect Being could for instance freely 'choose' to do something or other.
Since they would bound to act accordance with their nature, and are also understood to be
unchanging. Problem being that, saying a Supremely Perfect Being cannot do simple things that we
can do suggests that they are far from being omnipotent. Except, when we say that a Supremely
Perfect Being cannot play football or as such, we actually imply 'wouldn't given a Supremely
Perfect Being's nature'. Like in the same way we could say that 'Ghandi couldn't have murdered an
innocent human being'. On the other hand, it is still true to say that it was an open possibility for
Ghandi to have murdered an innocent, but it seems wrong to suggest it is an open possibility for a
Supremely Perfect Being to torture innocents. Either way, for a Supremely Perfect Being to be
omnipotent is incoherent on its own. To say a Supremely Perfect Being is Omniscient means that
they have the capacity to know all true propositions, so they know the past, present and future. In
saying so implies that they have a mind, which implies that they have a brain and a brain is physical,
but we can

God's Divine Omniscience
Boethius' way of understanding Gods divine omniscience came from his dilemma of whether or not
it denied him of free will. He knew that God's divine omniscience was necessary for it is within
Gods very definition that it must exist. However, if it is true that God knows everything that has, and
ever will happen then where does that leave room for free will? To answer this Boethius describes:
first, what Gods knowledge is and how it doesn't imply necessity, second, how it is ok that we don't
fully understand God, and third, the nature of eternity and what it means to his omniscience.
Gods knowledge is not predictive but is intelligible; what is known is known with absolute certainty.
Predictions involve the weighing of what is likely and what ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Sense perception is the lowest sense that to which almost all animals have. Sense perception is only
the awareness of bodily senses. Imagination is higher in that it does not depend on physical objects.
Reason is even higher because it allows you to understand universal law through inference and
analogy. The highest sense is pure intelligence, that of which only God has. Pure intelligence
understands the workings of the universe without the use of inference or analogy, it can grasp
meaning through simple thought. God is the only one with pure intelligence. Senses higher up on the
list can understand everything below them but those below can never understand those above. So
Boethius derives from this that we can try to understand Gods omniscience the best we can, but we
will never understand it like he does. So the nature of Gods omniscience can only be truly
understood by the sense of true intelligence that let it exist.
Gods eternity, Boethius describes, gives key to the nature of his omniscience. Gods knowledge
transcends change. He does not experience past present and future as humans do but instead
experiences all of time, all at once in one single grasp. God exists outside of time. He is current
witness to everything that has and ever will happen. If God is witness to all time then it is not
necessary that he be the cause of our actions, but because the bi–product of our actions our currently
being witnessed there occurrence is in fact

Essay on On Free Choice of the Will: St. Augustine’s View...
On Free Choice of the will: St. Augustine's View on Evil
This paper examines St. Augustine's view on evil. St. Augustine believed that God made a perfect
world, but that God's creatures turned away from God of their own free will and that is how evil
originated in the world. Augustine assumes that evil cannot be properly said to exist at all, he argues
that the evil, together with that suffering which is created as punishment for sin, originates in the
free nature of the will of all creatures. According to Augustine, God has allowed evil to exist in the
world because it does not conflict with his righteousness. He did not create evil but is also not a
victim of it. He simply allows it to exist.
It is impossible to deny the existence of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If God is not all–powerful, is he worthy of worship? And finally, does God not exist?
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 questions the nature of God and threatens his status as a figure worthy of
worship. Surely human beings would not wish to worship a God that is neither all good nor all–
powerful? The figure we call God is seen to be entirely perfect and flawless in every way. The
problem of evil also questions God's omniscience, in respects that he is all knowing. If God is
omniscient then he must know the harm that evil does and the suffering it will cause. The attributes
in question are the essence of the nature of God and without them he becomes more like a human
than a God. If any of God's characteristics are omitted, he

Descartes Omnipotence: The Paradox Of The Stone
The attribute of the omnipotence of God can't be limited to pure physical power but is also
entangled into his other attributes as well. In this paper, I will briefly touch on God being morally
perfect, and His omniscience. The second half of this paper I will focus on the paradox of the Stone
while demonstrating that God's knowledge also becomes part of his power as well. First, the
definition of omnipotence needs to be addressed due to different interpretations based on an
individual's worldview. Philosopher's such as Descartes considered God all powerful even defying
the laws of logic. So with Descartes theory, God could create an oval rectangle or change the laws of
mathematics everything was in Gods power. However, this argument is not as convincing to the
populace of man who views life through a secular view. Aquinas searched for a more logical answer
for man. God can do anything that is possible excluding creating a state of affairs that are
contradictory. God can not violate the laws of logic and mathematics. To quote Aquinas, "we were to
say that God is omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible to his power, there would
be a vicious circle in explaining the nature of His Power. For this would be saying nothing else but
that God is omnipotent because he can do all that He is able to do." (Nash p. ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
God cannot create something or a situation that is outside of this his nature. So something being un–
logical would be a contradiction to the laws God's logic. Modern scholars today

Good People, by David Foster Wallace Essay
David Foster Wallace's "Good People," is a very touching, powerful story about a young, unwed,
Christian couple facing an extremely difficult decision and the moral and religious implications that
may result. As the story begins, we are allowed into the head of Lane Dean, a college student, as he
sits on a park bench with his girlfriend, Sheri. Lane and Sheri find themselves faced with an
unplanned pregnancy, which causes them to battle with several moral and religious dilemmas. Both
of them are devout Christians who have built their moral beliefs upon God and their religious
upbringing. Although torn Sheri schedules an abortion, which weighs on Lane deeply. Lane, frozen
in fear and not having the courage to freely talk to Sheri about ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
When Wallace writes "...the air suffused with honeysuckle and lilacs both, which was almost too
much" (1) readers can literally almost catch a whiff of the honeysuckle and lilacs in the air.
Wallace's precise and purposeful style of language allows us to get a true feeling for Lane, our
protagonist, and the terror, desperation and nervousness he feels in making a horribly difficult
decision. "He hated himself for sitting so frozen. He could almost visualize himself tiptoeing past
something explosive. A big stupid–looking tiptoe, like in a cartoon. The whole last black week had
been this way and it was wrong" (1) portrays the sheer terror and desperation that Lane is feeling.
Wallace tells this story from a limited omniscience point of view, only allowing us into Lane's head.
This point of view complements Lane's character as well as the tone of this story as it helps to set
the frightened and worried mood of the story as it permits us, as readers, to experience the inner
conflict and desperation that Lane is feeling. The setting, in my opinion, has hints of foreshadowing
that work nicely with Lane's inner conflict. When Wallace writes "[t]hey were up on a picnic table at
that park by the lake, by the edge of the lake..." (1) the word "edge" prompts a feeling that the story
is on the verge of change. When Wallace writes of "springtime" and "storms", it provokes a feeling
of newness and change. In my opinion, all of the literary elements in "Good

The Argument Of The Logical Problem Of Evil
Introduction In this paper, I will break apart J. L. Mackie's stern defense of the logical problem of
evil, which he uses to suggest the God does not exist. I will attempt to defend the notion that both
God and evil, in the form of human creation, can exist in the world by way of suggesting that
freewill is the answer. Furthermore, I will strengthen the argument for freewill against Mackie's
defense, which suggests that the argument of freewill also compromises the Omni–three nature of
God. In part, I will back freewill by using Mackie's own logic against him. In its totality, I will build
up a strong force against the logical problem of evil, leaving room for both the existence of human
formed evil and God in this world under the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Seemingly, the presence of evil says either God does not want all–good or God is not actually
powerful enough to follow through with his desire for all–good. In either case, the only way for God
and evil to coexist is if God gives up one of his Omni–Three components, which in essence makes
him not God in the defined terms. To put it another way, if God exist then by his nature, being all–
good and all–powerful, its only logical for the world to, also, be all–good, which of course it is not.
Ultimately, Mackie uses this logic to argue God cannot exist if evil disseminated through the
universe, which it clearly does, leaving the only conclusion to reject God's existence.
Argument
Now that's all well and good, except for the fact that the logical problem of evil spends so much
time focused on the omnipotent and the omnibenevolent aspects of God that is all together neglects
the fact that God is also omniscient. He knows everything, past, present, and future. Therefore, it is
only logical to assume that God also knows the best way to achieve the greatest good, which as
established is the singular goal of an omnibenevolent being. If such knowledge is true, as it must be
according to the laws of Omni–three, then it is possible that God has determined that the greatest
good can only come by human–choice, also known as freewill, not by His force. In a bit, I will
attempt to explain just

Essay about the problem of evil
Studies in the Philosophy of Religion
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
"God is the omnipotent and wholly good creator of all things"
"There is evil in the world"
a) EXPLAIN THESE TWO STATEMENTS AND SHOW WHY THEY ARE SAID TO BE
CONTRADICTORY (20)
The problem of evil is usually seen as the problem of how the existence of God can be reconciled
with the existence of evil in the world. It's regarded as a logical problem, because it is based on the
apparent contradiction involved in holding onto three incompatible beliefs. This being that God is
omnipotent, that God is wholly good and that evil exists in the world. The fact that evil exists in the
world constitutes the most common objection to the belief in the existence of the omnipotent (all
powerful), ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
God is said to be wholly good; a morally perfect being. This is difficult to define briefly as there are
differing accounts of what morality and goodness are. It's easier to pick up a general negative
requirement of moral goodness. A being that is morally good shouldn't inflict unnecessary suffering
or allow others to inflict unnecessary suffering which the agent had the power to prevent. According
to this criterion is God good? Stories in the Bible suggest not, for example the great flood. God is
supposed to have killed all human beings except a select few and all but two of each animal on the
planet. This can't be the action of a morally perfect being. If he was all–powerful, which he
supposedly demonstrated through this great flood, couldn't he have stopped the bad things
happening? Wouldn't it be kinder to take away the human race's free will, and prevent further
problems then killing them all? Other stories such as that of Abraham follow a similar line. God
asked Abraham to sacrifice his baby son as a test to determine Abraham's loyalty to God. Would a
morally perfect being choose to test a person in such a way? It's wrong to show your authority in
such a way and why would God, a supposedly perfect moral being, want his creation to love him
more then they love their own? Doesn't he want what's best for them? Creating such anguish and

Meaning Of Psalm 139
SIM #7 Psalm 139 Genre: The genre of Psalm 139 is Hebrew poetry, simply because the psalms
were written in Hebrew and are a collection of poems and laments. The first principle of
interoperation is that the psalms blend experience, emotion, and theology. This should be taken into
account while reading the poem in order that the reader does not simply skip over the theology by
only focusing on experience and emotion. The second interoperation principle is that each psalm
should be read as a whole. Verses of psalms should not be taken out of context, in doing this the
reader may distort the meaning of the psalm. Another interpretation principle to take into
consideration is the different genres of psalms such as: laments, thanksgiving, hymns of praise,
wisdom, and songs of trust. With that being said, Psalm 139 not only falls under the Hebrew poetry
genre, but is also classified as a psalm of trust. Lastly, the fourth interpretation principle is that
parallelisms are used. In other words, ideas correlate in many different ways such as: synonymously,
antithesis, intensifying, specifying, and synthetically.
Grammatical/Literacy: Why does David specify that God will hold him with his right hand? What is
the "depths" and does this refer to hell?
Historical/Cultural: Are "concerning" and "precious" interchangeable in Hebrew (During this time
period)?
Does "written in your (God's) book" refer to the Old Testament that has been previously written,
such as the Mosaic Covenant?

Final Exam
It is perhaps useful to lay out the argument as stated in class. The Edwardsian version of the
dilemma of freedom and foreknowledge can be formulated as the following:
P1. I ate breakfast this morning.
P2. Necessarily, if I ate breakfast this morning, then God knew in 1000 A.D that I would eat
breakfast this morning.
P3. If God knew in 1000 A.D that I would eat breakfast this morning, then it was never within my
power to prevent God's knowing in 1000 A.D that I would eat breakfast this morning.
C1. Therefore, it was never within my power to prevent God's knowing in 1000 A.D that I would eat
breakfast this morning.
P4. God's knowing in 1000 A.D that I would eat breakfast this morning entails that I eat breakfast
this morning.
P5. If C1 ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
According to the principle of Divine Foreknowledge of Action (Slide from Lecture 2/14/17) God
knew this was the case at every point prior to my eating breakfast that I would do it–he knew it in
1000 A.D, 1 million years ago, even moments before I did it. Additionally, by virtue of the principle
that Knowledge Entails Truth (Slide from Lecture 2/14/17), God's knowing of anything entails its
truth. Because God's knowing that I would eat breakfast this morning in 1000 A.D and my eating
breakfast this morning are "indissolubly connected" (Platinga 55) in the way Platinga describes, my
eating breakfast this morning is necessary in the same way God's knowing I would eat breakfast this
morning in 1000 A.D is. Now, if my eating breakfast this morning is necessary, then I was powerless
not to. Considering the principle that Freedom Requires the Power to do Otherwise (Slide from
Lecture 2/14/17), this means I did not eat breakfast freely. Edward's account of the dilemma of
divine foreknowledge and freedom presents major problems for our freedom. For, if God is
omniscient, we are not free. Many (if not most) arguments or descriptions of God's existence rely on
his essential omniscience (and omnipotence and omni–benevolence) for one reason or another so the
need to counter Edward's dilemma is urgent for compatibilists. While another figure Platinga
discusses, Ockham, denies P3

An Analysis of Peter van Inwagen's The Magnitude,...
An Analysis of Peter van Inwagen's The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: a Theodicy
In his essay, "The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: a Theodicy," Peter van Inwagen
alleges a set of reasons that God may have for allowing evil to exist on earth. Inwagen proposes the
following story – throughout which there is an implicit assumption that God is all–good (perfectly
benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient) and deserving of all our love. God created humans in his
own likeness and fit for His love. In order to enable humans to return this love, He had to give them
the ability to freely choose. That is, Inwagen holds that the ability to love implies free will. By
giving humans free will, God was taking a risk. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Inwagen answers that for God to reconfigure the world so as to restore paradise immediately after
the Fall would require Him to extinguish all memories of the events leading to the Fall. Such an act
would be deceitful – a quality we assume a perfect being does not have. Furthermore, were God to
immediately restore man to union with Him, there is no reason to believe that man would not fall
again. By allowing man to experience the pain and suffering of evil in this world, God allows man
to come to know the real and wretched consequences of turning away from God. The sooner man
realizes the hideousness of the fallen world, the sooner he will complete the plan of Atonement,
turning his love back to God and asking for His grace. By making the restoration of union with God
(in Heaven) a gradual process of living in an evil and wretched world, God's looking out for man's
eternal welfare, assuring that man will not fall again. In the mean time, the more evil, pain, and
suffering God allows man to experience here on earth, the faster man will turn to God and secure
goodness for his life eternal.
So far, I have given an abbreviated version of the story Inwagen presents, and the gist of the
explanations he uses to defend it. Now I will address one aspect of Inwagen's defense, specifically
his account of natural evil. By natural evil, I mean those large–scale natural events or disasters that
commonly result in pain and suffering: e.g., tornadoes, earthquakes, and

God 's Salvation For Us
Before starting the exploration of discerning God 's predestined plan of salvation for us, we have to
understand a little bit about his own nature, attributes and characteristics. With our limited mind, we
cannot fully comprehend or define Him, but based on the scripture verses that we have, we can
observe some of His essences and attributes. His divine essences are revealed in the Scripture
through His love, holiness and righteousness.
Some theologians, who tried to understand God 's nature, also agree about some basic attributes like
the sovereignty, the omnipotence, the omnipresence and the omniscience of God. Having an
accurate understanding of all these characteristics of God will help us to build this study on a solid
platform.
The sovereignty of God tells us that He has unlimited authority over His Creation. The fact that God
is sovereign and love, at the same time, gives us the confidence about the fulfillment of His
promises to us.
God 's Omnipotence guarantees us His power to fulfill all His promises. God showed His absolute
power through His Creation and his redeeming plan of salvation. Apostle Paul describes how his
power is proved through Christ's resurrection by writing "His incomparably great power for us who
believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when He raised Christ from the
dead" (Ephesians 1:19–20).
The omnipresence and omniscience of God help us feel safe and confident that God is in control; He
is everywhere in the same time

The Idea Of Being Present
Omnipresence is a trait typically ascribed to God. It is defined as being present everywhere
simultaneously. However, one aspect of this definition that is not as widely agreed upon as the rest
of it is the idea of presence. What is it that philosophers' mean when they refer to the presence of
god. The idea of being 'present' is a very peculiar one. in the sense that to physical objects it simply
describes an object being in some sort of confined region of space, however Per Anselm, when we
apply this to a god, an all powerful and all knowing agent, it doesn't make much sense to say they
are at any regions of space in reality, in which the agent doesn't exert his existence. In a sense the
agent exists everywhere yet not wholly at any point in space. This interpretation.
Furthermore, Thomas Aquinas refines Anselm's theology by introducing the notion of god existing
through his own 'influence' in a different sense of space than that occupied by matter and energy.
This influence includes his omnipotence, omniscience and his creations. This particular explanation
resonates greatly with Anselm's idea of God's existence being unrestricted by space. For all intents
and purposes this 'influence' of God could be seen as something in a fourth dimension that is
unperceivable to simple observations. This would tie into Wierenga proposal that god is unseen to
the world, yet the world is laid bare before god. This idea of god being unseen even transfers into
Aquinas' analogy of the king

The Views On Divine Foreknowledge By Gregory A. Boyd- Open...
Philosophy has been a subject with many views, and has been a topic of many scientists and
philosophers for thousands of years. One of the vital concepts in philosophy is the idea of God and
what kind of being he is. Christians believe that God is an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and
omnibenevolent. If God is an omniscient, all knowing being, to what extent does his knowledge
reach? If God is an all knowing being, does he know everything a person will do every day for the
rest of their life? And if he does know everything, do people truly have free will? There are four
major views on divine foreknowledge that attempt to explain the extent to which God's knowledge
of the future reaches; Open Theism, Simple Foreknowledge, Molinism, and Calvinism. These four
views are explained throughout the book "Divine Foreknowledge" written by Gregory A. Boyd–
Open Theism, David Hunt– Simple Foreknowledge, William Lane Craig– Molinism, and Paul
Helm– Calvinism. One of the most popular views is Open Theism. This view holds that "Reality... is
composed of both settled and open aspects."(Boyd 14) What Boyd means by this is that God's
knowledge of what will happen, his foreknowledge, does not necessarily extend to knowledge of
everything. Rather it means he knows some things, settled aspects, and others he does not know,
open aspects. For example, in Genesis chapter 15:13–15 reads, "Then the Lord said to him, 'Know
for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers

The Problem Of Evil Essay
AP/PHIL 1000 B
Stephen Bedeau 214332449
Dennis Vasilis Papadopoulos
December 3, 2015
Word count: 1271
Problem of Evil essay
Although it could be argued that an omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent deity could exist
along with evil. It is in fact not reasonable to believe so. I will prove that it is unreasonable to
believe a god with these attributes like this can exist accompanying evil. In order to give a valid
argument ill look at each component, omniscience, omnipotence and Omni benevolence and break
those down leading to the conclusion that a being such as this cannot coexist with evil. I will look at
the arguments given for why god wouldn't exist as well as some of the points that may be used by
others to combat them. To make ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In this situation there are two options for someone to take, first reject one of the main premises that
god is not omniscient or that such a being exists in the first place. Refusing to believe she exists of
course is the least likely option for those who are religious. Classical theists would disagree with
both of these things because to give up one of the three big aspects of god goes against their faith
entirely. Some may accept that god is not omniscient and others may argue that free will in a
situation like this. This is completely aside from just natural evils that occur these are the evils that
humans bring to the world. However if god already knew what was going to happen and we
supposedly have free will it cannot be used as argument since it can be questioned if you can have
free will if everything is determined. Now it is fair to say that an all knowing god does exist and
with all his vast knowledge could not create a world without evil nor rid the world of evil after it
came. This clues into the next point of her omnipotence. With that said, it is irrational to think that
this omniscient deity exists.
In challenging the existence of the whole being must be looked into, each part of an Omni god
omnipotence, omniscience and Omni benevolence are very closely related to each other. Naturally it
makes sense to have

The Scripture God 's Power
Theology Proper From the opening of Scripture God's power is on display as he creates ex nihilo,
but before such an awesome display can even be considered, one must contemplate that God is.
Numerous creeds throughout history have begun with the affirmation, "I believe in God." The
existence of God is seen in the intricate designs and the complexity of the universe, but this alone
cannot fully establish the existence of the God described and revealed to us in Scripture. The biblical
God is more than just a creator of a deistic universe; his power extends beyond. Although he is
sometimes spoken of in anthropomorphic terms, God is spirit (John 4:24). He does not have a spirit
as man does; he is pure spirit. No one has seen God nor can see him with the physical eye (2 Tim
6:16). A spirit has no flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). God as spirit has great implications in the
understanding of who God is and the worship we offer. In the above referenced verse, John goes on
to say that those who worship God must do so in spirit and in truth; "the nature of God determines
how he is served." (FOOTNOTE FERGUESON, 213 LOGOS) This will be discussed at greater
length in a later section. Therefore, despite the primarily masculine language used in both the Old
and New Testaments, God has no gender. This truth has spawned an increased critique of the way
God is discussed and portrayed in modern society and has brought up concerns about linguistics and
how Scripture is interpreted through the

God And Man Have A Bond Together
"Which came first, man's need for a relationship with God or God's desire for a relationship with
man?" This answer to this question is interpreted differently based on every individual's
understanding and specific relationship with God. The truth is that both God and man have a bond
together. The only difference is that God always wants a bond with man and will always work for
one while man often does not realize that he needs a relationship with God, and at times does not put
in the effort that is required to sustain a long term relationship. God's character is often
misinterpreted through scripture, and many people do not fully understand what they are receiving
when they form a relationship with the Lord. Many also do not understand that God wants a
relationship with every one of his creations because of his unwavering love for them. Psalm 139
emphesizes God's sovereign love and desire to form a relationship with all of his creations through
his characteristics of omnipresence, omnipotemce, and omniscience. God's omnipresent character in
Psalm 139 correlates with his desire to love and be loved by his creation. Omnipresence derives
from the theological term meanig always present. God wants to be present through triumphs and
struggles to show his eternal love for his beings. David uses the second stanza to highlight God's
never ending presence. David begins verse 7 questioning how he could avoid God saying "Where
can I go from your spirit? Where can I flee from your

The Existence Of Moral And Natural Evil
Theodicy is an attempt to address the existence of moral and natural evil with the perception of an
Omni–max god that encompasses three key properties; omnibenevolence all–good or all–loving,
omnipotence all–powerful, and omniscience all–knowing. High theology accepts that God does
exist in the universe as the greatest being of the Omnis, whereas low theology acknowledges the
existence of God without one of the key properties of the Omni–max god. The various defenses that
aim to solve the problem of evil that include the Soul–Making, Best of All Possible Worlds, and the
Free Will defense are not compatible with the existence of a Omni–max God. All three of these
defenses would have to surrender one or more of the key properties of an Omni–max god that is not
consistent with high theology. Low theology accepts that God has limitations to his powers in the
universe. In order to explain the existence of evil in the universe one or more of the Omni–
properties; omnibenevolent, omnipotent, or omniscient has to be surrendered that pertain to the high
theology belief system and the low theology should be acknowledged as the principal belief
structure. I argue that low theology is an acceptable conviction for the existence of God, because it
can solve the problem of evil by giving up one or more of the Omni–max God properties.
The Free Will defense states that God created a world in which humans could convey free will even
though he knew that evil would be produced from the actions

The Doctrine Of The Faith
Mavrodes begins by stating the doctrine of the faith, which is that God is omnipotent (capable of
anything). There has been attempts to refute the omnipotence of God by proposing things he cannot
do. One example Mavrodes gives is the creation of a square circle.
In paragraph two Mavrodes goes on to highlight the counterarguments to these attempts by a St.
Thomas. St. Thomas wanted to clarify that the "anything" that we refer to when we talk about God's
omnipotence should be, "construed to refer only to objects, actions, or states of affairs whose
descriptions are not self–contradictory." Thomas goes on to say that only things whose nonexistence
might plausibly be attributed to a lack of power would fit under this category. Mavrodes ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Mavrodes now decides to state that despite this difference, the question of the stone is open to the
same solution as the problem of the square circle. The question of the stone doesn't work because it
depends on asking whether God can perform a self–contradictory thing. The answer that he cannot
do such a thing does not damage God's doctrine of omnipotence.
Either God's omnipotence is true, or he lacks such omnipotence. If we are to assume that he is not
omnipotent, the problem of a stone too heavy for God to lift wouldn't contradict itself. If we say that
God is able or unable to create such a stone, his omnipotence may be in question. This too is no
more than an assumption much like the one we started with. Mavrodes then questions whether or
not the assumption of the omnipotence of God always leads to a reductio, when in fact, in may give
us a feasible answer.
When one assumes that God is omnipotent, a stone too heavy to lift then becomes contradictory, as
it then becomes what Mavrodes refers to as, "a stone which cannot be lifted by Him whose power is
sufficient for lifting anything." The stone this scenario describes contradicts itself and is entirely
impossible, so we can check it at the door when it comes to questioning God's omnipotence. Not
being capable of logical existence, it's failure to do so can't be due to a lack in the power of God. It
is the omnipotence of

Tiresias In Oedipus
Both topics of Tiresias being accused as blind by Oedipus (when he is in fact the blind one in the
scenario placed within the play) and Jocasta being blind to the fact that the prophecy foretold to her
came true coalesce in regards to reversal of binary in numerous processes, especially in regards to
both having the motif of blindness vs sight, and ignorance vs knowing–not to mention disrespect of
the Gods as a whole, something very fundamental to Greek culture at the time. What is happening
here in regards to binary within the play as a whole is that such examples explain the central theme
at work, the binary of total omniscience and all knowingness of the gods vs the folly and ignorance
of humankind as a whole. Such an example of this binary in action is in the case of Tiresias,
representing the concept of the all–knowing God within a form more palatable to the decidedly
ignorant human, which is Oedipus. He brings up legitimate concerns over Oedipus not regarding the
actual servant of Apollo, and therefore his interpreter seriously "I am not your slave. I serve Apollo"
(467) is but one of the claims Tiresias spread forth against Oedipus as he continues to not regard his
claims. The refusal of Oedipus to look within himself or the gods is why Thebes is in chaos in its
own right. Oedipus is the hero of the story, technically–but he is arrogant enough to refuse all
attempts of understanding the situation despite the god nearly literally throwing proof of his guilt at
him.

The Spirit World Essay
This weeks reading continues with the theme of the of the Spirit world, with a specific interest in
angels and demons. The text begins by stating quite plainly that one cannot deny the existence of
angels under the authority of scripture. Yet, within this topic there seems to be an air of mysticism
and pleasantries around these beings. In other words, when discussing this topic it is rather
important to get away from the thought that we have an angel on one shoulder and a demon on the
other. However, this is about as far an understanding as a majority of common culture has allowed.
All the while, scripture is plain, angels do indeed exist throughout the whole new and old testament,
from Genesis to Revelation. The text then transitions from the existence of angelic beings to the
biblical description of them. The first characteristic that Ryrie mentions is the state of Angels as
created beings as apposed to beings that create. This simply means that angels were created by God
and they ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Like the angels he shares in the ability to think, feel emotion, and have a personal will. That being
said his personality is not described with the holiness of the angels. Coupling the existence of his
personality with Jesus' encounter with him in the desert gives further insight to his personhood.
Simply put, Satan is not just a personification of evil because Jesus uses personal pronouns when
speaking to and about him. The text then mentions something that I find rather comforting. Satan is
a created being, he is not creator. He is not on an equal platform in power as God. This means that
he possesses limitations to his power. For God alone holds the power of omnipotence,
omnipresence, and omniscience. Though he is a mighty being he is still not as powerful as his
creator. Satan is actually named as the chief arch angel in Ezekiel 28:12. This means he has held a
great deal of power, which is why he is currently known as the prince of the

Why I Exist: God's Reason for Creation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Jill Bell

More from Jill Bell (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Why I Exist: God's Reason for Creation