Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
The existence of God is one of the most challenging topics, the defense of which is extensively discussed in theological literature. The atheists and those who identify as undecided reject the presence of God, arguing that there are no physical, audible, or other confirmations. In turn, the proponents build their arguments on such concepts as the meaning, value, and purpose of life. This paper aims to explore various philosophical underpinnings with regard to the problem of evil in theism to explore the arguments against and in favor of God.
Philosophical Similarities and Differences in Readings
The idea of immortality is one of the key themes that are discussed in theism in terms of the problem of evil. In The Absurdity of Life without God, Craig (1994) states that there is no ultimate purpose without immortality, and the absence of God means that there is no reason for living. The human race, accordingly, is not immortal and meaningless. In this connection, people can be seen as a by-product of evolution and a result of the cosmic accident. Similarly, Thomas (2018) considers that a Neo-Darwinist approach reduces life without God to mere genetic replication and the survival of DNA. The immortality of DNA does not mean the same for people, who become blind and indifferent since their life would end in the grave.
The readings by Thomas (2018) and Craig (1994) have one more similar point that is the purpose of living as one of the arguments that support Gods existence. According to Thomas (2018), who discovers the concept of purpose through the discussion of suffering, God helps to recognize reality. On the contrary to science, Jesus suffering and that of ordinary people illuminate the necessity of pain and its purpose. For example, females have to ensure enormous pain during labor, but the appearance of a baby eliminates that suffering and grants happiness. Craig (1994) claims that it is inconsistent to think that people live for no purpose, and their actions occur by chance. The mentioned author criticizes biological determinism, claiming that this approach equalizes a person and any laboratory specimen, which means that human life is nonsensical.
On the contrary to the arguments that were presented above, Habermas (2008) provides the views of Hitchens and Harris, who examine the goodness of God. They state that there is no objective ethics as they follow from the developmental perspective. The questions about the impact of the Holocaust, Hurricane Katrina, and deaths of innocent children are posed by atheists. According to this point of view, the problem of evil is not addressed by God, which challenges His existence.
Objective Meaning and Good Life
A persons life cannot have objective meaning without God as it is meaningless: there are no unprejudiced right or wrong issues. Craig (1994) argues that people should believe in and value objective meaning, thus understanding that war, oppression, and crime are the expressions of evil. In a universe without God, the very existence of people is meaningless. Only some personal, cultural, and historical values may determine the way of life, but love, equality, and brotherhood become insignificant.
Life cannot be good without objective meaning since the only solution, in this case, is being brave and accepting absurdity. However, it is impossible to live happily in such an inconsistent worldview, which can be observed in difficult situations when people tend to ask God to help them even though they did not accept His existence before (Thomas, 2018). This is an attempt to affirm the meaning and purpose of life, but it is not achievable until a person resides in a two-story universe. In a world, where both a good person and a sinner end in a grave, the very best of the former becomes unreliable and pointless.
Gods Existence and Problem of Evil
The conclusions made in this paper point to the existence of God: the recognition of this fact explains suffering, the meaning of life, and immortality. Habermas (2008) rationally notes that the problem of evil clarifies the presence of absolute morality in the world with God. The atrocities of the Holocaust, for example, can be viewed in terms of ethical standards only in case if God exists. Otherwise, atheists considering the mentioned events seem to establish their arguments against theism only on their personal feelings of disgust. Thus, one cannot live with a partial belief in God: an individual should either deny it and do not lay evil at God accept absolute morality.
Conclusion
To conclude, this paper discussed the problem of evil in terms of theism and found that the arguments in favor of Gods existence are more rational than those of atheists. Suffering and reality can be explained as the way to achieve happiness and immortality with God. The meaning, purpose, and value of life can also be fully understood only in the presence of God. A good life and objective meaning were identified as intertwined concepts that are nonsensical in case people are perceived as mere cosmic orphans.
References
Craig, W. L. (1994).The absurdity of life without God. Web.
Habermas, G. R. (2008). The plight of the new atheism: A critique. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 51(4), 813-827.
Thomas, T. (2018).Suffering: Richard Dawkins contra Jesus. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.