A
AHIMSA
Guest
I'm in first year university, this is an exerpt from one of my essays. It deals with the problem of evil. Basically, how can an all loving and all powerful God allow for Evil? Just wondering what your thoughts would be:
The most basic issue that arises with any philosophic and or logical argument for the existence of both an omnipotent and yet benevolent God, in a world that provides much more evidence to the contrary, is the very fact that his existence as such is always verified, or attempted to be verified, with logic and reason. The basic presupposition is that, by using sequential logic and the basic law of cause and effect, one can reason his existence. It is undeniable that the world is bound by a series of laws. It is not logical to say three plus three equals four, and to say that the earthquake in the south Pacific did not cause a massive tsunami would be to ignore the relationship of cause and effect. Likewise, it is said that if God created human beings who were not capable of choosing wrong, then logically, they could not love him, for they would not be capable of not loving him. This is the basic argument of free will, which postulates that human suffering is the unavoidable consequence of humanity’s ability to choose. It is contended that, if God created humanity in such a way that they would always choose the good, then they would be trapped in a web of predestination and deny the possibility of true love. Firstly, to say that human beings, by their nature, have to make an immoral choice is also a form of pre-destination. Just as a being that would always act correctly is arguably restricted by his own nature, so can humanity, marred by original sin, be considered bound by this same argument. An absolute in either direction, that is to say “humanity must do this†or “must do that†according to his or her nature, is pre-determining their actions. Just as a machine is pre-destined to eventually work down and fail, a mountain to erode, a human to die, so are human beings pre-destined to commit an act of evil. The argument of free will would make more sense if there were certain human beings who would never choose to do wrong, and yet others who did.
However, there are other points of contention with this argument. It is said God can not create human beings with free will who would also have the ability to express love. To say that God could not create “A†,without “B†occurring, is to deny his omnipotence, and is to suggest that God is bound by the relationship of cause and effect and logical sequence, laws which he himself created. If he is truly all-powerful, then surely he would have the ability to resolve apparent contradictions. Therefore, any attempt to justify the presence of evil and retain his omnipotence or benevolence through logical arguments firstly ignores that God is above such constrictions.
However, in anticipation of this argument John Hick, in his essay The Problem of Evil, states that it is certainly possible for God to create beings that are “free from the risks inherent in personal freedom†but argues that, however superior these beings might be they would “constitute a different form of life†and would not be “what we mean by persons†and would, therefore, not be capable of entering into a loving relationship with him. However, this does not completely circumvent the law of cause and effect, for it logically assumes the criteria required to love God is directly linked to our ability to chose to love him.
Secondly, this argument seems to suggest that a perfected being, who will always choose to do good, is not capable of being moral nor immoral. However, and acknowledging the irony in invoking logic, this statement would logically imply that God himself, who always does what is good, is not a moral being. This would further imply that Jesus, who was a human being when on earth, was not capable of loving God for he always chose to do what is right, such a being, according to Hick, lacks moral freedom for it is the mark of the morally free to make a wrong choice. Some would respond that God can not be compared to man, for they are different beings. However, Christian theology continues to interfere.
The basic tenets of traditional Christian theology hold that God is perfect and therefore, can only exist in eternal paradise with those who are likewise. Sin is so abhorrent to him that he can not stand to be in its presence. Thus, as sinful beings, we are separated from God. The solution to this problem, then, is found in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ . However, if one can not compare the characteristics of God, such as his ability to be perfectly righteous, it then seems rather odd that the trait of perfection is the standard which must be met for entrance into heaven. Christians, once in heaven, will no longer be capable of sinning less they be cast out. They will, in a sense, by like God; incapable of doing wrong. One might argue that this further supports the Christian position; that humanity literally needs the divine Christ to be within them. Though true enough, one must keep in mind that the religion contends human beings can not be in the presence of God until they posses some of the qualities which make him God. According to Hick, these godlike beings would “hardly be what we mean by personsâ€Â, but as is now suggested, it is not ‘persons’ that God ever desired to be with him in the first place. The question remains unanswered, why would did God create fallible humans rather than crate these “perfected beings†by which he judges us, and which Jesus himself is described to have been?
The most basic issue that arises with any philosophic and or logical argument for the existence of both an omnipotent and yet benevolent God, in a world that provides much more evidence to the contrary, is the very fact that his existence as such is always verified, or attempted to be verified, with logic and reason. The basic presupposition is that, by using sequential logic and the basic law of cause and effect, one can reason his existence. It is undeniable that the world is bound by a series of laws. It is not logical to say three plus three equals four, and to say that the earthquake in the south Pacific did not cause a massive tsunami would be to ignore the relationship of cause and effect. Likewise, it is said that if God created human beings who were not capable of choosing wrong, then logically, they could not love him, for they would not be capable of not loving him. This is the basic argument of free will, which postulates that human suffering is the unavoidable consequence of humanity’s ability to choose. It is contended that, if God created humanity in such a way that they would always choose the good, then they would be trapped in a web of predestination and deny the possibility of true love. Firstly, to say that human beings, by their nature, have to make an immoral choice is also a form of pre-destination. Just as a being that would always act correctly is arguably restricted by his own nature, so can humanity, marred by original sin, be considered bound by this same argument. An absolute in either direction, that is to say “humanity must do this†or “must do that†according to his or her nature, is pre-determining their actions. Just as a machine is pre-destined to eventually work down and fail, a mountain to erode, a human to die, so are human beings pre-destined to commit an act of evil. The argument of free will would make more sense if there were certain human beings who would never choose to do wrong, and yet others who did.
However, there are other points of contention with this argument. It is said God can not create human beings with free will who would also have the ability to express love. To say that God could not create “A†,without “B†occurring, is to deny his omnipotence, and is to suggest that God is bound by the relationship of cause and effect and logical sequence, laws which he himself created. If he is truly all-powerful, then surely he would have the ability to resolve apparent contradictions. Therefore, any attempt to justify the presence of evil and retain his omnipotence or benevolence through logical arguments firstly ignores that God is above such constrictions.
However, in anticipation of this argument John Hick, in his essay The Problem of Evil, states that it is certainly possible for God to create beings that are “free from the risks inherent in personal freedom†but argues that, however superior these beings might be they would “constitute a different form of life†and would not be “what we mean by persons†and would, therefore, not be capable of entering into a loving relationship with him. However, this does not completely circumvent the law of cause and effect, for it logically assumes the criteria required to love God is directly linked to our ability to chose to love him.
Secondly, this argument seems to suggest that a perfected being, who will always choose to do good, is not capable of being moral nor immoral. However, and acknowledging the irony in invoking logic, this statement would logically imply that God himself, who always does what is good, is not a moral being. This would further imply that Jesus, who was a human being when on earth, was not capable of loving God for he always chose to do what is right, such a being, according to Hick, lacks moral freedom for it is the mark of the morally free to make a wrong choice. Some would respond that God can not be compared to man, for they are different beings. However, Christian theology continues to interfere.
The basic tenets of traditional Christian theology hold that God is perfect and therefore, can only exist in eternal paradise with those who are likewise. Sin is so abhorrent to him that he can not stand to be in its presence. Thus, as sinful beings, we are separated from God. The solution to this problem, then, is found in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ . However, if one can not compare the characteristics of God, such as his ability to be perfectly righteous, it then seems rather odd that the trait of perfection is the standard which must be met for entrance into heaven. Christians, once in heaven, will no longer be capable of sinning less they be cast out. They will, in a sense, by like God; incapable of doing wrong. One might argue that this further supports the Christian position; that humanity literally needs the divine Christ to be within them. Though true enough, one must keep in mind that the religion contends human beings can not be in the presence of God until they posses some of the qualities which make him God. According to Hick, these godlike beings would “hardly be what we mean by personsâ€Â, but as is now suggested, it is not ‘persons’ that God ever desired to be with him in the first place. The question remains unanswered, why would did God create fallible humans rather than crate these “perfected beings†by which he judges us, and which Jesus himself is described to have been?
