PART A: Explain Mill’s challenge to the teleological argument. (25marks) The teleological argument claims that God designed the world with a purpose. God is often described to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. Mill criticises the idea of the teleological argument, he doesn’t believe that the world is designed by a God because within nature there are cruelty and crimes that are unpunished. Mill argues that if God designed the universe he wouldn’t have created something containing any evil at all it wouldn’t fit in with his description.
However, in the case that he lacked omnibenevolence, evil would still cast a dark shadow in the world because perhaps God does not desire to relieve it. In actuality, God can be all three, and evil can and does exist. This is true because God is not responsible for the evil in the world. Evil blemishes the world wherever the world is lacking in goodness. If evil did not taint the world, the world would lack good and freewill, too.
In the world evil happens almost every day, from earthquakes to murder. People go through suffering and pain every day. A lot of people believe that there is a god but how could there be a god when there is so much evil in this world. If god was there he would be omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful) and Omni-be¬nevolent (all good) , and morally perfect, which would mean that there should not be any evil, but the problem is that there is evil in this world. Does the problem of evil prove that god doesn’t exist?
Analyse Hick’s vale of soul making theodicy. (30 marks) John Hick’s vale of soul making theodicy is a modern form of the Irenaean theodicy. This theodicy argues that both natural and moral evil are important, so they have a good purpose and therefore an all loving God is justified in allowing evil. Hick claimed that God had made humans morally imperfect to help them complete the process of creation themselves. He argues that humans are made in the image of God with the potential to accomplish perfection in the future, and then humans will then grow to become the likeness of God.
Also that if events such as, seas getting dried up were to happen everyday they wouldn’t be a miracle. Wiles has also said that believing in miracles could be wrong, as if they were done by God then he could have stopped major tragedies, e.g. Auschwitz and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In these examples it limits God and he is seen as not being omnibenevolent. However, in the New Testament God heals and individual who is blind and lets others die.
Since we know evil and suffering is a necessary bi-product of human life, we must acknowledge that evil does exist. This proves problematic as it then brings into question the traditional theist’s view of God. However, no traditional theist would accept Hume’s conclusions because it denies God of His perfection. There are ways of sidestepping this issue such as, atheism, deism and polytheism, but none are accepted by traditional theists, and are therefore not a true solution to the problem. A theodicy is seen as a true solution as it defends God’s nature in the face of evil and suffering.
The first argument, that subjectivism creates infallible moral agents, reads as follows. In subjectivism, to say something is bad is to say one has a bad feeling about it. As one can not be mistaken about their feelings, one can not be mistaken about moral judgements. For those who have encountered someone with very objectionable moral viewpoints however, perhaps violent homophobia or racism, it seems obtuse to suppose such people to be as equally moral as a loving and accepting person. The argument concludes with the claim that, despite the supposed infallibility, people are often mistaken in their moral judgements.
God wanted us to love him but also want us to fear him as well. Christians believe that God is the father of creation and Kings of Kings. Christians would explain the characteristics different because of the opinions and views that they have. As a Christian I view God as loving, mercy, and forgiving. He loves us just as much as he love his only son.
These are mainly Roman Catholics and they disagree because they say that ‘life being at the moment of conception’ (page102) so if the embryos are used then it is like killing a baby which is banned by the Bible and the church. Even though Roman Catholics disagree with embryo use, they agree with the same things that the liberal Protestants agree with about genetic engineering. Also, some Christians are against genetic engineering completely. This is because they say that God made us how we are so we are in no place to interfere with Gods will. They also believe that genetic modification is almost like playing Gods role, which is seen as disrespectful to God.
But I for one would not. Hitler was an awful human being but despite his terrible actions, I would choose not to kill him. The gargantuan gaping problem with garrotting Hitler (alliteration) is the butterfly effect. The idea that changing one thing in the past, no matter how small, can have grave consequences to the future. For example, if one where to kill Hitler, who is to say that someone smarter or more evil than Hitler would not have come into power?