![]() ![]() Where is the line drawn, though? Johnson says it should be on the side of intervening more than not. However, God should step in to stop or prevent the most horrific of disasters. 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). Johnson agrees that God’s involvement in every disaster would be wrong. In other words, nature and the cause and effect that people know would not be consistent or reliable. If God did become involved, it would be impossible for anything to be predictable. 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. Johnson …show more content… The laws of nature also attempt to defend God. ![]() These positions also deal with free will, virtue (or moral urgency), and the laws of nature. Hick examines two types of theodicies – the Augustinian position and the Irenaeus position. These include free will, moral urgency, the laws of nature, and God’s “higher morality”. ![]() Johnson provides the theists’ defense of God and he argues them. Two philosophers this class has discussed pertaining to this problem is B.C. 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. The Existence of God and Evil The problem of evil has been around since the beginning. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |