I myself am an Atheist, and therefore in my opinion believe miracles are impossible as all miracles are by, definition impossible if they claim to be the action of a deity. There are four different definitions of miracles, A ‘radical change for the better’ in a person, an ordinary event which has Religious significance for the believer, A remarkable or unusual event which has been directly caused by God but does not go against or break the laws of nature and The ‘laws of nature’ are being broken by God, which is the definition David Hume (18th Century) uses. This more traditional understanding of a miracle is the understanding of classical Theism, namely that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and therefore he does intervene on occasion to perform miracles. As an atheist, David Hume refutes miracles, he does not believe that they can happen, although he has one of the most famous definitions of the traditional understanding of a miracle. Hume
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. Within the world exists two types of evil; natural evil and human evil. Examples of natural evil are natural disasters which have no human involvement such as; volcanic eruption, earthquakes, hurricanes and tsunamis. These disasters cause death and suffering of millions of innocent humans. Surely and all loving (omnibenevolent) God wouldn’t allow this.
Falon Amanda Moss Prof. Edmond Lisa ENC 1102—Virtual Class 20 October 2011 Eliezer’s Faith Struggle Most people ask the question why is there evil? If God is all good then why did he create people who are evil and that rebel? To the unbelievers, and the atheists, this would be their argument. How can an omnipotent, benevolent God allow evil? Eliezer started to struggle with this same question.
Only he can redeem, justify, and sanctify us, and we need all three for our salvation. So we understand that our nature is sinful, but through Jesus we can win the battle against our flesh. Paul wrote that through the law we come unto the knowledge that we are sinful. We understand that through the work of the law, that we cannot be justified in the sight of God. We must know that we are justified by grace apart from any works in the
The story begins with God angry because Everyman pays too much attention to his riches instead of acknowledging Him. God says, "Of ghostly sight the people be so blind, Drowned in sin, they know me not for their God. In worldly riches is all their mind." (271 Shorter Norton) This is the first time we see an example of deception. Everyman has turned his back on God and set his sights on things that are not deemed important at the time of reckoning.
The issue that arises most commonly comes when all three of God’s characteristics are observed. As an omnibenevolent being, God, in theory, would not allow evil to plague the earth. One might assume God’s omnipotent nature would discount the existence of evil because he is able to stop it. Along with these, God’s omniscient powers would allow him to know of all of the evil. 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.
Professor Barbara C. Sproul REL 205 Section 001 5 February 2013 Being or Not-Being Paul Tillich’s “Religion as a Dimension in Man’s Spiritual Life” is his argument against two groups of people, the Literal Theologians and Social Scientist. The Literal Theologians believe that Religion is given by God and he does exist as a being. While the Social Scientist argues that Religion is a man made and God is a being who does not exist. Tillich in the middle of this has a side that he supports and that side is neither. Paul Tillich argues against the literal theologians and the social scientists as well.
As Dennis McCallum explains in The Problem of Evil, there are more than a few ways to prove or disprove God. The most interesting and well thought out argument is the attack based on the persistence of evil. This attack uses the argument that if God were good and all-powerful he would destroy evil, but since evil still exists, there is no such God. Whether this attack is saying that God is not good or that there is no God at all is unclear, but I see it as saying that there is no God. If there truly were a God who was good, why would he let all the unnecessary pain and suffering happen in the world?
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?
The question remains however can the validity of God’s existence be concretely established? All philosophers past and present have addressed this claim. C. Stephen Evans has commented “the case for religious faith will not be based on a single argument functioning as proof, but upon the total evidence available from every region of human experience.” (Nash 1999). This concept of the cumulative argument as proof states that individual unconnected facts may not establish proof but he culmination of the same facts leads to a logical conclusion. This theory uses inductive reasoning rather than the more common deductive reasoning.