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.
To what extent is the via negativa the only way to talk about God Within this essay I will be arguing that the via negativa is a very unhelpful way to talk about God as if we were to only talk about him negatively we would ultimately never know anything of God’s nature. Instead, I will argue that analogy is a better way to talk of God and I will refer to Aquinas’ ideas of analogical language. The via negativa (or apophatic way) claims that people can only talk about God in negative terms because he is transcendent and utterly different and greater than anything we can comprehend. Thus we cannot say what God is because his nature is beyond our comprehension. The word “good” in reference to God is meaningless as we cannot know what this entails; it is completely different from saying “the man is good”.
Why Is There Evil And Suffering In The World? The curious as well as the critics of Christianity ask this question. If God is all-powerful and all loving, then why does He permit evil and suffering in the world? Various answers have been given but permanently settling the issue is impossible because so many of our answers raise further questions. Nevertheless, our lack of ability to answer the question perfectly does not mean that we cannot offer solutions.
McCloskey contended against the three mystical verifications, which are the cosmological argument, the argument from design and the teleological argument. He called attention to the presence of evil on the planet that God made. He likewise called attention to that it is irrational to live by trust or faith. As indicated by McCloskey, confirmations do not essentially assume a fundamental part in the conviction of God. Page 62 of the article expresses that "most theists do not come to have faith in God as a premise for religious conviction, however come to religion as a consequence of different reasons and variables."
For example, on Damascus Road, Saint Paul’s religious experience transformed his moral outlook. It would appear that all religious experiences demonstrate a revelation of truth, but one could argue that this does not indicate they are true. As Freud would argue that religious experiences are a way of externalising deep, repressed personal truths. In such a view, religious experiences are unverifiable and cannot be thought to prove the existence of God, as they are merely manifestations of the human subconsciousness. A transient experience short, and cannot be sustained for a long duration of time.
Things that should guide people towards repentance could potentially keep their focus looking inside themselves. Once a person can truthfully see how sinful their thoughts and lives are, it can and will hopefully lead them to depend on God. While Crabb is relying on God for answers, Rogerian theory states that “no other human being can possibly determine what the correct or incorrect behavior is for any other individual. Because of this, Kensit says that therapists must keep this in mind and use non-directive but yet supportive therapy. (Kensit, 2000).
We need guidance to learn and to improve our faith. God Knows the heart of each of us and no human can see what God sees or knows. So how do we know that we are saved? I Say that its important to have a strong relationship or foundation with god and to always build on it also first we must understand God's definition of what being "Saved "Mean. That’s why we sin because Satan does not want us to understand the meaning of being saved.
“God can only ever be understood partially and ineffectually, if at all.” Considering at least 3 different methods for understanding religious language, to what extent do you agree? Plan: Agree with partially but disagree with ineffectually Using methods of Wittgenstein, analogy and symbols Partially * Aquinas – analogy, analogy can be used to describe God in a way humans can understand * EG God is a warrior – can be used to convey the meaning that God is a fighter but still different * Could argue that since God is indescribable, does analogy tell us anything? * God is indescribable – must assume that he’s indescribable, that’s why we can only describe him partially and not fully Is effective * Wittgenstein – language games, true for the people that believe in God, bringing God down to a human level, therefore easier to understand * Christianity’s popularity can be used as an example to say that God is effective, otherwise no one would believe in him The statement “God can only ever be understood partially and ineffectually, if at all” is correct to a certain extent. It is true that God can only ever be understood partially but it is incorrect to say that God can only ever be understood ineffectually. The three methods that can be used to understand language are: Wittgenstein’s language games, the concept of analogy and the concept of religious symbols.
And for morality to require God in such a way, there must be a direct link between the two. I believe that morality is defined by God, therefore immoral actions are wrong solely because God forbids them. Similarly, the “rightness” of moral actions is only because God has commanded them. In today's world things are defined as “right” or “wrong” or “moral” and “immoral.” This is because God, is the one that has allowed us to even understand what morality is. I believe that God is the creator and sustainer of all things, and that we would not even be self aware, let alone aware of right and wrong, if God had not created within us his image, and therefore the ability to make moral distinctions.
Many, if not most, Christians would argue that they believe the second statement and that morality depends entirely on God as he is omnipotent and omnibenevolant and so is the source of goodness. One reason why atheists would argue that Christians cannot follow any other statement is because if morality was grounded if something other than God, it means that atheists could do morally good actions consciously, without requiring religious faith, and could perhaps be more morally good than a Christian, making belief in or obedience to God pointless. Therefore, theists need to claim that morality can only be understood through God because what He commands is good, to set them apart from and above the rest of society in