Therefore, believing God to encompass all of these traits would leave anyone in their right mind wondering how anything bad could ever happen in the world. Some suggest that accepting two of these three qualities allows for the possibility of evil. For example evil could thrive if God were omniscient and omnibenevolent, but not omnipotent. God would then be all-knowing of the evil that takes place. Also, he would crave goodness in the world.
Hume concluded that the three points are inconsistent. If God is omnipotent, He is aware of existing evil and suffering, and knows how to put a stop to it. If God is omnibenevolent He will want to put a stop to it. If God is both of these attributes, then evil cannot exist. Since we know evil and suffering is a necessary bi-product of human life, we must acknowledge that evil does exist.
Surely and all loving (omnibenevolent) God wouldn’t allow this. Human Evil is where people cause harm to others and create chaos. Why would God create a world that consists of evil and cruelty? therefore Mill questions the idea of an omnibenevolent God, however if it is disagreed that God isn’t all loving then it could suggest that God doesn’t know of our suffering and could mean that omniscience cannot possibly be an attribute of God. Mill would say that if God is omniscient then surely he is aware of our suffering and would therefore intervene in the evil as he loves us all.
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. Hick accepted that if the likeness of God is to be accomplished through experiencing evil then God is partially responsible for evil. However, Hick argues that God is justified in allowing evil because we develop virtues as a result of overcoming life’s challenges. These virtues are “intrinsically more valuable than the virtues created within him ready made without effort on his own part”. Vardy’s example further supports this with the analogy of the king who falls in love with a peasant girl.
However, in the New Testament God heals and individual who is blind and lets others die. A strength of Maurice Wiles argument is that it appeals to educated believers of God and scientific laws. This I because Wiles says that the concept of miracles can exist as it is "logically impossible" to prove miracle wrong scientifically. By saying this, Wiles is allowing religious people to also uphold their beliefs in scientific laws. A second strength of Maurice Wile's argument against miracles is that it allows a re-interpretation of miracle.
If an individual holds to the belief that there are gods and demons that create events to guide human actions than they have a polytheism worldview. Scripture states that God created the entire world and that His eternal power and divine nature, although invisible, can be understood and seen throughout creation (Rom. 1:20, KJV). Humankind has made a choice to ignore His presence by worshipping themselves and false idols seeking their own pleasures foolishly. It is because of this foolishness that God released humanity to their selfish lust (Rom.
Catholic people think that if you believe in God miracles seem more obvious to you and if you deny and test the existence of God then it will be harder to see the miracles happen. If God really is behind all of the natural laws, he is not restricted by them therefore He is allowed to violate them from time to time. This also contradicts the fact that God is omnibenevolant and defeats the saying that ‘all humans are equal’. There are a lot of problems with using miracles to prove Gods existence, some say that one person’s miracle is not one to another person, we have some sort of scientific explanations to miracles that happened in the bible, so in the future we could have explanations to miracles that
Some people assume that he does not believe in miracles but he does not say this he just says you have to be careful about the difference between a ‘miracle’ and something extraordinary happening. Hume’s argument on miracles was written in his essay ‘Of Miracles’, he rated his argument very highly, claiming that it was an argument that “which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion and consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures.” To understand Hume’s argument against miracles we have to understand his definition as his argument is based on his understand of ‘miracles’ and his understanding of ‘the laws of nature’. He defines a miracle “as a transgression of the law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.” Hume’s argument against the likelihood of miracles rests on his use of induction. This is explained in ‘The Question of God’ by Micheal Palmer, he explains that “It is…a fundamental principle of inductive reasoning that the more I see A followed but B, the greater is my expectation that A will be followed by B in the future. That I expect a rubber ball to bounce is dependent on my having seen the rubber ball bounce not once but many times.
It also puts limits on God’s power. According to the definition of a theistic God, God is omnipotent. If God is all powerful then he should be able to command whatever he wants but by saying that morality is independent of God would mean that God is subject to the rules of morality (Fisher, 359). All in all the main issues with the Autonomy Thesis are that it would only be reasonable if one was not considering the existence of a theistic
For that reason, Descartes introduces the evil demon/genius instead. Descartes assumed first that it was God, who deceived us, but with the conclusion that God is all-good, he instead conclude that an evil demon exist. This evil demon possess the same power to deceive us, which God also would possess. God is perfect. Since humans have the ability to think of a being more perfect then themselves, then this being must have planted the idea in our mind.