Category: God

Agustine and Boethius try to explain and interpret the role and divine power of God, his impact on human life, and his understanding of human nature. Agustine and Boethius try to prove the existence of God using concepts and ideas dominated in Medieval philosophy and based on the Medieval world views. They agree that the man is one who brings his troubles and resentments without hesitation before the Lord. He is as far as possible removed from the conventional picture of the pious person who would never think of questioning God.

Augustine declares that Gods providence remains in control of the nations even when they refuse to acknowledge him. The true reason for the long success of Rome was not that Jove had helped it; it was that God had ordained that it should be so. Consequently, Augustine goes to great lengths to refute the contemporary theories that fate rules the destinies of the nations. Against those Greek views which saw history going around in circles and repeating itself, Augustine asserts that history, under God, has a purpose and a goal. Among the nations of the world, God chose the Jewish nation that within it there might be built the City of God. There were other individuals, among the other nations, who also belonged to the heavenly city, just as some Jewish individuals failed to belong to it. No other people were chosen as a group. Finally, in the one man Jesus Christ, God himself appeared to make manifest the purpose and meaning of the whole of history. Jesus founded the Church, which was henceforth to embody the City of God upon the earth. Thus, in the time of his writing, Augustine found that the City of God was represented by the Church, while the City of the World was represented by the Roman Empire (Furley, p. 43). Now this ruin they do not impute to their own gods, though they impute to our Christ the evils of this life, which cannot ruin good men (Agustine, p. 69).

The Church was not identical to the City of God. Not all members of the Catholic Church were members of the celestial city. In fact, not all members could ever hope for salvation. On the other hand, while the Roman Empire was essentially evil, it did perform certain real services for the Church in its maintenance of a certain amount of peace and concord. Although its reasons for seeking this peace were purely prudential and selfish, and rather like those that led to honor among thieves, the Church could still profit from it to spread its gospel. As a result, the Christian must pray for the state, fight for it when its wars were just, and accept positions of authority within it. This is possible because, so long as this world exists, there will be an overlapping of interest between the two cities in the orderly maintenance of mortal life. This harmony, however, cannot be complete, for the laws of religion will not be the same for both cities. At this point, the heavenly city will have to dissent from the state, and it both has suffered and will suffer for doing so (Furley, p. 73).

The fall of the Roman Empire was not, insists Augustine, due to its betrayal of its national gods. It was due rather to the nature of all states which bear within themselves the seeds of destruction. The Roman people were bound together as a people by their love of common objectives. As time passed, these objectives became less and less ideal. Self-love became more excessive and imperialistic. The people rose up against one another in civil strife and thus was broken the concord which is the minimum necessary to hold together an earthly state. Rome fell because of her sin, not because of disaffection from her gods. Augustine denied the view which people know as premillennial. This view is based upon a literal reading of the book of Revelation and holds that the Devil is to be chained for a thousand years after the coming of Christ, during which time there will be perfect peace upon the earth for the saints, who will reign with God (Furley 77). At the close of the thousand years, the Devil will be loosed, and there will follow the cataclysmic battle between Christ and the Antichrist when even the saints will be sorely tried and some will fall. Finally, after his victory, Christ will judge the living and the resurrected dead; the present earth will be transmuted into the heavenly kingdom of eternity. Augustine comments that although he had once held this view, he came to see it as too materialistic and based upon a faulty reading of the Scriptures (Furley, p. 61).

In contrast to Boethius, Augustine insists that the first resurrection is not the resurrection preceding the thousand years of the millennium, but rather it is the resurrection of the soul that has been dead in sin and trespasses. Consequently, the first resurrection occurred with the coming of Christ. The thousand years began with Christ and is not to be taken literally as meaning a thousand years, but thousand is the perfect number and is symbolic of the perfect nature of Gods kingdom. The kingdom of God has thus come and is present in the Church despite the fact that the Church is to be purified, at the Final Judgment, of the tares that now grow within it. When the Last Judgment comes and the second resurrection occurs, history will be ended, and the righteous will be transmuted to heaven to enjoy the perfect piece of fellowship with God, while the unrighteous will be condemned for eternity. In short, the final stage of history is present, and man cannot hope for a perfect earthly society in the future (Furley, p. 65). Augustine finds meaning in the whole of history. This meaning is dependent upon the goal toward which history is moving, a goal that lies outside history. In fact, Augustine takes pains to point out the absurdity and hopelessness of those who would find the meaning and purpose of history within history, or within this earthly life. On the other hand, the goal is the fulfillment of history and does not simply deny it. Within history are fought the battles between good and evil; within history, man makes his choice as to which city he shall join. The goal is thus more than history, but it includes history and does not ignore it (Green, p. 55).

Boethius sees the fateful boundaries of human life as a truly compelling man but never as coercing God. They constitute real barriers against undue self-confidence on our part; they keep us in our proper place before God; they even help us to rely on him more and more completely (Boethius, p. 33). Thus people cannot believe that what is fateful is as compulsive for God as it is for us. How can it be so if it is actually the means by which God enlists and strengthens our faith in him? And so the persuasion grows that our very barriers are Gods frontiers through which he comes righteously and graciously to bring his saving power to our aid (Green, p. 43). Boethius underlines that people cannot see the fatalities of our existence as they must appear to God; and yet it is our Christian duty to meet and understand these things by faith in him to whom they are neither final nor irrevocable. People are bound to declare that fate is no real substitute for an absent, silent God, but rather a blasphemous parody of him. Let us be very clear that fatalism is at the bottom of nihilism; it comes down to that (Green, p. 68). Yet for this reason, it raises in a most acute and unavoidable way the whole question about Providence. That is why it cannot be shrugged off as atheism and henceforth dismissed. True, the proponents of this point of view press its claims boldly, at times with an exaggerated theatricality, but always too with an unbearable lucidity. Moreover, they are not content simply to describe the vacuum where God used to be; as has been said, having abandoned God, they are now trying to imitate him by creating a world out of nothing (Green, p. 31).

The message of Providence can scarcely come into this situation genially and blandly. It is not to be administered like a pat on the back or whistled like a cheery tune in the dark. Only as people have learned to take the full, exhausting measure of the worst, have people the right to say the providential best about our human destiny. But we must not on this account hesitate or temporize, for this great message is both opportune and pertinent. More than fourteen hundred years ago from a prison cell in Pavia, Boethius set forth with eloquent clarity the true relation between Providence and what men call fate. Let us now dive deeper into the heart of the issue between fatalism and the Christian view of Providence (Green, p. 54). Perhaps what has already been said can be summed up in this way: people must accept fatality, or the fateful, as the limited, encroaching condition of our existence, but not fatalism as the true understanding of our destiny. Gods power unharmed and still untouched, you will hardly be able to talk about misfortune with any justice (Boethius, p. 29). Exactly what this means will grow clearer if people allow thinking to be guided by two verses from the apostle Paul which form indeed the biblical basis of this great doctrine. Yet it is the Christian faith that catches up and savingly transforms this generally felt connection between sin, death, and guilt. Since death must always mean for us the cross of Christ, it can be borne, accepted, even gloried in, as belonging within the mysterious economy of God. Faith does not overleap or circumvent death but sees right through it and beyond it to an austerely loving Providence (Green, p. 92).

For a thousand years or more Augustine was the reigning influence in the Christian interpretation of history. His theory of the two cities was the doctrinal basis for the relentless battle of the Middle Ages between secular rulers and the pope. The degree to which Augustine had identified the Church with the kingdom of God was used by the popes as the basis of their claims to supremacy over secular rulers (Green, p. 43). Beyond the sphere of Satum lay the sphere of the fixed stars, and beyond that, the Pnmum Mobile, which is caused by God to rotate on its own axis once in every twenty-four hours (Boethius, p. 61), At the same time, the sharp distinction that Augustine had made between membership in the visible Church and membership in the City of God or invisible Church, were neglected or forgotten. It became increasingly difficult for the Church to see itself under the judgment of God. Rather it felt that it was expressing the judgment of God upon the states of this world. Where Augustine had little hope that the two cities could co-operate on laws concerning religion, the Church increasingly sought to have the state enforce its religious laws, including religious orthodoxy (Green, p. 77).

It is possible that no large-scale imposition was ever intended, and that the writer adopted, as a literary device, to suit his principal theme, the name of one who had worshipped the Unknown God, in Whom we live and move and have our being, and had added, as corroborative literary detail, a few topical references to his exposition of theology. However that may be, the unknown writer not only concealed his identity very effectually from posterity, but also ensured for his writings, for more than a thousand years, respect and an authority which they would certainly not otherwise have acquired, and in consequence, through a misapprehension without parallel in either sacred or profane literature, much of his teaching has become embedded in the theological tradition of the West (Helm, p. 87). Right here lies the greatest obstacle to belief in Providence for many in the modern-day, and it must be faced. This crushing sense of human insignificance is not of course a new thing, but today it has a quite unheard-of range and force. The folk of this generation around the world has seen the systematic collectivizing and vicious brutalizing of men on a scale far greater than ever before; they have not only endured but participated in ghastly horrors and demonic actions without number (Helm, p. 87).

In sum, Boethius and Augustine underline that recognition of God in the midst of apparent fate is really a mutual recognition in which God takes cognizance of us and refuses to allow us to become totally estranged from him. There at the barricades of destiny God notices and responds to us, challenging and correcting our little faith in him. So true is this that even our distrust of God is seen to be the result of a reluctance to accept life at his hands and on his terms. If people complain of God, people must do their complaining to him; and our complaint is really a confession that people do not trust him to be God or make faithful response to him just where he is trying to break through to us. On this point Kierkegaard has written with customary discernment: This truth, that God encourages us to complain to him because he is fully able to justify himself, is a part of the Christian teaching about Providence which must not be overlooked. Yet surely the providential principle is beginning to emerge already. It is that the same things which hide God possess also the mysterious faculty of disclosing him, so that people are able to discover Providence in just those situations from which all hope or help seems ruthlessly excluded.

Works Cited

1. Augustibe of Hippo. City of God. Penguin Classics, 2003.
2. Boethius, A. The Consolation of Philosophy: Revised Edition (Penguin. Penguin Classics, 1999.
3. Furley, D. From Aristotle to Augustine. Routledge, 1999.
4. Green, R. H. The Consolation of Philosophy: Boethius. Prentice Hall, 1962.
5. Helm, P. Eternal God: A Study of God without Time. Clarendon Press, 1997.

Explain how Gods omniscience appears to rule out human free will. Next, explain how Augustine and Gersonides handle this problem. Who do you think is more right, and why?

Within religious idealism, the belief the God is omniscient. The belief is that God is a being, who is not only the creator of everything in existence and is the central source of wisdom, love, and divine intervention in the universe. In the realm of philosophy, omniscience refers to essentially having the knowledge of all the true intentions of the universe and knowing which intentions do not hold true. The essential idea behind this concept can be explained by considering the terms which are used to describe individuals in the first person. If an individual expresses I am in pain, in this case, the only manner in which omniscience can exist is if another individual understands how the person sees his pain, not simply how he sees it himself.

The question of course then becomes can free will exist in humans in the presence of Gods omniscience. Before we begin trying to understand how the two concepts may be compatible or incompatible, it is first important to consider how human beings see the future. For human beings knowledge of the future is a problematic concept since our perception of the reality around us is entirely dependent on our current environment. We cannot know the future because the future as an environment cannot be perceived by individuals. Thus, our reasoning regarding the future is entirely dependent on our perception of the present. Thus, if we consider that God knows all the actions of human beings in the present and in the future, then it follows that God will know every action an individual takes. But then the question becomes if an individual has free will, does that mean that individuals can avoid committing to the same actions they are expected to do. Or perhaps if it is foretold that a person will do a particular act, does that mean that an individual does not have the will to choose to desist from committing the act (Cahn).

The question then becomes if God has foreknowledge of human actions, and human beings have foreknowledge of their actions, then does that mean that this knowledge gives human beings the ability to change such an action. There have been various philosophers who have attempted to tackle this question, to answer if there is compatibility between free will and determinism. One method which philosophers use to provide proof that God is omniscient is by saying that there are no facts that can accurately allow an individual to say what will happen in the future. Prior to someone exercising his or her free will, there is no way for any person to know what will happen. It might be said that this in fact acts against the omniscience of God. However, as the earlier point mentioned God cannot know the objective of free will before free will has been exercised no more than he can make square circles. There are of course yet other schools of thought who contend that free will is compatible with libertarian freedom. That God can know the objective of free will before free will has been exercised. These philosophers say that within the spectrum of God, the concept of time does not exist as it does for human beings or that Gods viewpoint of human beings is such that it does not impinge upon our consideration of free will. There is also a contention which is commonly known as middle knowledge. In this theory, God can contend to know all possible futures which may occur and any number of events that lead to it. Thus, this form of knowledge allows God to know the outcome of every decision an individual makes thus knowing what events will occur and what may occur (Cahn).

One of the individuals who offer a theory to tackle this problem is French philosopher Levi ben Gershon also more commonly known as Gersonides. He was a mathematician, philosopher, and astronomer from the the12th century. Despite being Jewish the philosopher did not hold the same views as other Jewish theologists. He said that God does not have complete foreknowledge of human events and actions. He is one of the individuals who provided the theory of middle knowledge. That God does not know what an individual will decide, however, he knows all the outcomes of every decision an individual might make. In many ways, his theories reconcile with those of Aristotle who said that God does not know the minute details of individual human beings. Gersonides believed that God despite his omniscience did not have foreknowledge of which choice human beings would make. He also speculated on prophets of God and answered a question regarding their knowledge of future events. He answered that though the prophets had knowledge of the future the knowledge provided to them was generalized and the prophets themselves perceived how this knowledge could be attributed to current events and situations. When speaking of fate he says that it is also bestowed upon individuals depending on the groups or species they currently inhabit rather than individualizing their fates. An example of this would be that philosophical men would have the same fate as other philosophers (Cahn).

The respect in which God knows contingents is the respect in which they are ordered  that is, God knows their essences. (Rudavsky 165)

Another Christian philosopher and theologian who offered his views on Gods omniscience was Augustine in the 3^rd century. Being a man of the church, Augustine did not provide any writings which argued that existence of God. However, within his writings he did recognize that mans as a creation was inferior in that he did not realize the eternal truth. Awareness of an absolute and perfect being comes from the realization of this eternal truth; with the beauty of his creation pointing to the validity of his existence.

Within his writings Augustine says that the creation of human beings is a predetermined process. That the only way for human being to be free was to accept Gods love and ask for his blessings. The main way in which Augustine discusses the omniscience of God is by exploring the concept of evil. He speaks of the world having being created by God as being fundamentally good. Human beings which are also a creation of God also enjoy the status of having free will but choose to commit evil acts. This is where the concept of free will is introduced. All human beings have free will to choose between good and evil, however, human beings intentionally choose evil causing sin and misery (Cahn).

Augustine takes the example of the creation of the Earth to show how free will creates misery. He speaks of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. How their pride resulted in their inclination towards evil, instead of choosing humility and being good. So the question is asked how God would allow creatures who are fundamentally good such as man to turn to evil. Augustine says that evil is not the product of God; rather it is the product of the earth. According to him mans soul was created from the earth and it is due to this creation that it has an imperfection which allows it an inclination towards evil. Within acts of evil there is no God and by following anything other than God man can only be evil (Cahn).

If man must sin, his sin is not the result of the wills choice, but is instead a fixed and inevitable necessity (Augustine, Benjamin and Hackett 90).

All this of course plays into the question of free will. If God has foreknowledge of free will then how does man have choice over his actions? Free will by definition implies that God cannot choose our fate for us since we are meant to make that decision. Augustine solves this problem by saying that God does not influence our decisions rather he understands the motive behind our decisions. In this way God does not make our decisions for us, rather he allows us to make decisions ourselves while knowing our reasoning behind it. It is through this that Gods omnipotence and omniscience does not contradict the existence of evil in this world. Free will by definition speaks of the ability to make a decision. However, God though having the ultimate free will does not have the inclination to make a decision. Thus, by allowing man to make his own decisions and knowing the motives behind them God allows him to choose misery or God. In this way God does not contradict the existence of evil or the choice of man in this world (Cahn).

In my opinion Gersonides opinion holds truer than that of Augustine. This is because Gersonides, unlike Augustine before questioning Gods omniscience questions his existence. Augustine opinion though interesting seems particularly biased towards planting God as an infallible being and humanity as being flawed. He does not truly answer whether men have free will, nor does he provide adequate reasoning for it. Much of what he discusses is based upon the catholic faith in which he was brought up. Gersonides however, despite his religious upbringing offers a theory which seems well thought out and does not purport to be more than it is. Gersonides himself admits his failings if he cannot contend with an aspect of the question and yet forges ahead providing his perspective on what he does know.

Works Cited

Augustine, Anna Benjamin and L. H. Hackett. De libero arbitrio, bk III. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1964. 90

Cahn, Steven M. Exploring philosophy of religion: an introductory anthology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Rudavsky, Tamar. Divine omniscience and omnipotence in medieval philosophy: Islamic, Jewish, and Christian perspectives p. 165. New York: Springer, 1985. 165

The problem of evil is one of the most controversial issues of the philosophy of religion. That is why it is widely discussed by philosophers and theologians. The controversy of the problem is in the question why evil exists in the world if it was created by a perfectly loving God.

A perfect God can be considered as the universe good, but this statement cannot explain the existence and progress of evil as the part of the created world. Answering the question of the origin of evil, John Hick accentuates the peculiarities of the soul-making project and the necessity of evil for the development of the humans souls with references to the possibility of the moral choice. Thus, according to Hick, it is possible to say that the project of soul-making explains the existence of evil.

John Hick states that the origin of moral evil lies forever concealed within the mystery of human freedom (Hick 125). That is why the concept of the humans freedom can be discussed as the decisive factor for explaining the problem of the moral evil. The humans were created as free-willed persons who have the right of moral choice (Hick). Thus, the right of choice is connected with every aspects of their life.

Each thing or phenomenon has two sides, a good one and a bad one. According to Hick, evil  whether it be an evil will, an instance of pain, or some disorder or decay in nature  has not been set there by God, but represents the distortion of something that is inherently valuable (Hick 123). With focusing on this statement, it is possible to say that the evil exists as the opposite side of the good. That is why the origin of the moral evil is in the wrong moral choices and wrong actions of a person who cannot resist temptation (Hick).

To explain the existence of nonmoral evil, Hick develops the idea that having created a free human, God realizes such relations with people as parents do with their children (Hick). That is why to teach a child to act according to Gods principles of the good and justice, it is necessary to show him the difference between the good and the evil.

A person should understand this difference in order to make the right moral choice. Moreover, it is the necessary factor for the development of the person, for his or her moral growth (Hick). Created to be free, the humans are also free in making their life choices because the inability to make a choice and the possibility to live only a virtuous life rejects the concept of the right of freedom.

Thus, the soul-making process depends on the existence of evil as the necessary aspect for the humans moral development. Moreover, Hick accentuates the fact that the possibility to create the world without evil and where all people are just and good rejects the concept of a free will which is the necessary aspect of the personal moral development (Hick).

John Hicks vision of the problem of evil according to which the existence of evil can be explained from the point of the soul-making project can be considered as credible with references to the concept of the humans freedom and the character of relations between God and people.

Works Cited

Hick, John. Philosophy of Religion. Upper Saddle Hill, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1989. Print.

In his book Mans Search for Meaning, Frankl addresses a variety of important issues regarding the essence of human existence and the mystery of God. The main part of his argument in this book is centered on finding the power that makes people act in this or that way. In contrast to Freuds famous theory regarding pleasure as a motivation for everything that people do, Frankl argues that in their life, people are motivated by the pursuit of what they find really important and valuable, and for many people, it is not acquiring pleasure. In the following paper, Frankls book will be addressed in terms of its authors position concerning the mystery of God and human beings. Overall, the quintessence of Frankls argument regarding the mystery of God and human beings can be seen in his theory of logotherapy that shows people as living entities who find satisfaction in searching for the meaning of everything around them including God almighty.

In Mans Search for Meaning, Frankl speaks about his experience in the Nazi concentration camps, and on the basis of the events seen there, he makes his own supposition regarding the mystery of God and human beings. Studying the examples from peoples lives along with his own example, and carefully meditating on them, Frankl begins to believe that a number of people are motivated by the other ideas and principles that are much more exalted than merely satisfying their needs for pleasure and happiness.

Frankl comes to a conclusion that actually people are motivated by their pursuit for meaning and for what is really important in the Universe around them. On the basis of this conclusion, he forms his well-known theory of logotherapy that can be seen as the essence of his argument in Mans Search for Meaning.

The logotherapy theory has a wide scope because it includes points that are both related to human beings and to the mystery of God as well. In this theory, God is shown as the embodiment and the object of human exalted needs or spiritual needs. Seeing that hundreds of people in the Nazi concentration camps were ready to suffer a lot of pain merely because of their faith in God, and they could leave the place any day and at any time just if they had rejected their faith in God, Frankl came to a conclusion that there existed a mystery of God and human being. According to Frankl, the mystery is in the fact that the need of worshipping someone divinely exalted may help people pass through the most troublesome events in their lives.

In conclusion, the book Mans Search for Meaning by Frankl provides an insight into the world of spiritual mystery. The theory of logotherapy, developed in the books argument, suggests that human being is much more complicated than Freud was trying to depict. In particular, meditating on the examples of people put into the Nazi concentration camps, Frankl begins to think that the real meaning of human existence is in searching for meaning, but not in acquiring something material. In the book, the author argues that although some people identify meaning with acquiring material things, the other ones continue for their searches, and they usually identify meaning with being Gods worshippers. Frankl even shows that at times, when people are robbed of their material values in the circumstances such as those in the concentration camps, they come to change their world perception, and they begin to value spiritual matters more than materialistic ones.

Many theologians tried to prove the existence of God and Anselm of Canterbury was one of them. His claims are based on the idea that human beings can know or understand the Supreme Being. Moreover, he does offer any evidence to support his proof. This is one of its major limitations. This paper is aimed at discussing Anselms arguments in more detail.

In order to explain his opinion, Anself focused on logical proof of Gods existence. First of all, he argued that God is a supreme being that cannot be improved. Overall, in his opinion, God is superior to everything else. However, he does not support this claim, even though it is a starting point for his discussion.

This philosopher believes that if a person understands that God exists, then it is possible that God exists in reality. Furthermore, he thinks that such notions as justice or goodness imply that there has to be a perfect being that represents greatness or justice. Anselm believes that something can be excellent or superior only if it exists in reality.

Critics have raised objections to Anselms argument about Gods existence, and their doubts are well-founded. One of these scholars was Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. He claimed that it is possible for a person to conceive a perfect island in ones mind. However, it does not mean such an island will necessarily exist. In this way, Gaunilo showed the limitations of this argument. In his turn, Anselm pointed out that Gaunilo spoke an island, which belonged to the class of material objects while God was all-embracing or universal.

The island or any material object can be improved but the same is not true about God. The problem with this explanation is that Anselm already assumes that God has reached a state of perfection in the beginning of his ontological argument. So, his proof is based on the claim that Anselm did not prove at the very beginning. However, this theologian does not actually compel God that cannot be improved or that it is a superior being.

There are other critics of Anselms proof, for example, Immanuel Kant who dedicated much time to philosophical reasoning. He believed that scholar had to find a link between his claim and an external concept. For instance, one can say that a stove is hot only if the stove exists. Provided that this stove is not present, one cannot say whether it is hot or not. Similarly, one should claim that God is perfect if the being exists. This is why Anselms logic is questionable.

Anselms argument is also based on the premise that it is possible to understand God. He says that if a person has the ability to understand God and then refuses to believe that he exists, then the person is a fool. However, this statement assumes that human beings have the capacity to understand a perfect and excellent being. Other scholars, such as Aquinas, assert that it is not possible to fully understand the essence of God. Furthermore, it is not possible to know the essence of something without necessarily understanding its true form or nature. Therefore, people can question the validity of Anselms proof.

Perhaps, one of the biggest problems with this explanation of Gods existence is the lack of empirical data or observational data from real life. A priori arguments always create problems in scholarly circles because they can be easily contradicted or eliminated.

When discussing concepts in the human mind, one must be open to the possibility of conceiving something that exists or does not exist. It is not a contradiction to assume that something does not exist, even when people speak about God. Instead, one should consider other arguments that may be used by theologians or philosophers.

On the whole, Anselms proof is fundamentally flawed because his reasoning is based on the claim that he did not prove at the very beginning. Additionally, he assumes that human beings can understand a perfect and eternal being. Finally, he does not provide any evidence in order to support his arguments. Still, the shortcomings of Anselms argument should not be used to prove the principles of atheism.

Introduction

Various arguments have been put forward regarding the existence of everything in the Universe. These arguments seek to find out the explanation of what exists in the world, and if this really testifies to the existence of a higher power, namely, God. Scientists, theologians and philosophers have divergent views on this issue. The debate over how the Universe came into existence is still contentious. This paper will critically evaluate the debate over nothingness and something and if this rationally explains the existence of the Universe.

Critical Analysis

The existence in the world, as we know it, came out of something. Religion and science have their own diverging stand points on how existence became and what it is presently. Some religious scholars have argued that science could not provide a satisfactory and comprehensive response to the question of existence.

They argue that scientists try to give a rational explanation for everything, even when some issues go beyond the limits of human understanding. They assert that science does not adequately provide answers on how the Universe came into existence. They have managed to maintain an adequate proof regarding existence. They claim that something was there even before the formation of the Universe.

Existence is an issue that confounds both the scientists and the theologians. It continues to baffle many how the Universe was formed. Many belief systems are based on the issue of existence and how the universe was formed. Science is influenced by forces of push and pull which speculate that there is an equal reaction for every action.

Scientists have advanced various arguments which attempt to demystify our understanding on the concept of existence. Some of these arguments have provided inadequate knowledge on the existence. Therefore, scientists cannot claim to have the best response on the existence of the Universe.

Debate over Nothingness and Something

Nothingness and something shape human understanding of the existence. These two concepts have influenced arguments that sought to shed more light on the issue of existence. The two opposite views have driven experts to come up with their own conclusions, regarding the subject of existence.

The Western view of existence has tended to show a radical divide between the two concepts. However, Eastern philosophies, which are mainly influenced by Buddhism or Taoism, do not have an issue with the concept of nothingness. According to the Eastern philosophical paradigm, nothingness complements something. Eastern philosophies show the two concepts as interrelated, and an equal balance between them influences nature, as we know it.

The philosophical conflict that arises out of this argument is intense. Some argue that nothingness had been a physical state before the Universe came into existence. Others state that we cannot effectively assume that nothingness had been indeed a physical state before the Universe came into existence.

The argument that theologians advance is that there must have been a higher power, which was responsible for creating existence, life and other worldly objects. This Judeo-Christian theological perspective has advanced the statement that God created the Universe and everything that is included in it. Some find this argument valid because it is justified by the individualised nature of all living beings and non-living things in the world. All these objects have unique sets of attributes which describe their identity.

The theological debate goes on to advance the notion that there is an omnipresent First Mind responsible for existence. This First Mind is assumed to have been God whose abilities and nature is beyond human understanding. Theologians further argue that God is responsible for individuality, as a concept of many living beings and non-living things.

Individuality is what defines appearance which is a common form of identity that all beings and non-living things have. Individuality gives us the means through which we can distinguish various objects and their attributes. The human sense of awareness is influenced by self-consciousness. Self-consciousness is responsible for every individuals mind and ideas.

Theologians advance the notion that consciousness explains that existence did not just come out of nothing. Existence is tied to nature, and as such, the only logical conclusion to this is that the concept goes beyond the human understanding. They further clarify that appearances and consciousness provide us with proof that God was responsible for all the creations in the Universe.

The concept of existence is reinforced by the ability of humans to distinguish between two or more things. The concepts of time, appearance, individuality and consciousness prove that existence did not spring out of nothing as scientists argue.

Conclusion

The question of existence is the one that will continue to baffle many scientists and philosophers in the world. Theologians argue that existence shapes our understanding of appearance and individualism which proves that God exists. The presumption that theologians have is the world did not come out of nothing but was created by God. The world and the Universe came out of something which had a strong power to determine its final state. This is proof that God is responsible for existence.

Many Christians usually find it difficult to explain how both good and evil coexist at the same time. This fact makes this issue a popular subject for many Christian and non-Christian philosophers. On the other hand, their points of view result in arguments. One of the philosophers who have contributed to this debate is John Hick. His work on the soul-making project has elicited varied reactions. Both sides support their arguments in a number of ways.

However, Hicks soul-making project is one of the most influential philosophies addressing the attitude towards God and sin. A theoretical analysis of Hicks theodicy offers satisfactory insight into how an infinitely powerful God might permit evil to exist or even happen. Both the weak and the strong points of Hicks argument will be evaluated in the paper.

One of the ways in which Hick put his point across is to refer to Augustine theorists. He refuted their claims that human beings were given the autonomy to choose their path. Moreover, he disputed the claim that humans and some angels misused this freedom and subsequently brought trouble on themselves. Finally, Hick disagreed with the notion that evil came about after human beings committed the sin. Therefore, he concluded that malevolence was not a punishment for the original transgression.

Hicks soul-making project defends the antagonism to Augustinian theorists by quipping that the fall of soul beings was not necessarily a calamity. In that case, the fall of humans was viewed as a manifestation of the weakness found in human beings. That flaw was part of human beings right from creation.

To support that claim, Hick asserted that human beings were created not in the likeness of God, but in His image. Therefore, human beings are infants spiritually. The creators intention was to let humans grow both morally and spiritually. Hick then made the conclusion that evil did not exist as a punishment. The arguments articulated by this theory are very shrewd and convincing.

Another strong point of Hicks theory is that it can easily be adapted to the present-day doctrine. The soul-making project points out that the world is a place where souls grow and develop. Therefore, no one is to go through his/her life as a ready-made person. Human beings have to strive to achieve certain moral values.

In the same way, when character is developed gaining certain life experience, is beneficial to a person. Even in modern day life, everything that is achieved through strife is of more value. As Hick puts it, a paradise would not permit humans to develop. The challenges faced and overcome result in more perfect human beings.

One area of Hicks soul making project that seems controversial is the claim that God is responsible for the continuation of evil. To those opposing against the theory, claiming that God is responsible for any evil is outrageous. This group believes evil is a making of the human beings themselves.

Hick condemned this fall doctrine as a whole. He claimed that that doctrine could not be proved either scientifically or philosophically. According to Hick, it would be historically impossible to prove it because the theory of evolution would refute such a possibility. In addition, philosophically, it would be difficult to conceive the idea of sin in a perfect world. One can argue that even before the fall, the perfection did not mean that humans were ideal.

Instead, humans were then uncorrupted. Hick addressed that by making a claim that even if this was true, human beings still needed a reason or a motive to sin. In this case, there should have been an external influence or an internal weakness in humans. Both the scenarios point that God was responsible for either the external force or the internal flaw.

The nature of sin, as advocated for by Hick, makes it necessary for human beings to have a reason for sinning. This seems to conflict the nature of sin because it makes it hard to explain. For instance, when a person makes a wrong deed, he or she usually has a choice not to do so.

The fact that a person might go ahead and do it means that there is some motivation involved. Whatever action one takes, it always serves to satisfy a certain desire. Those opposing against the claims of the soul-making project make the nature of sin seem inexplicable and irrational. In response to this, Hick questioned why God created creatures acting in an unreasonable and inexplicable way. If one tries to answer this question, one can end up attributing the origin of sin to God.

Therefore, my conclusion is that Hicks soul-making project still explains how a perfect God can permit evil in His creation. The opposing claims fail to conceive me. Even using historical and scientific support, it is still difficult to refute Hicks claims. All the weak points in his theory do not necessarily translate into strong points for the opposing camp. The fall doctrine also fails to attribute sin solely on the free will of the human beings. Therefore, human beings sin because the environment in which God placed them challenges them to do so.

Descartes was very willing to unveil the uncertainty which was prevailing. He wanted to defeat skepticism completely. All these proofs were brought about by the fact that he wanted to remove his metaphysical doubts. Descartes tried to apply clear and distinct ideas as a paradigm to capture human knowledge and the use of cosmological argument to prove the existence of God. After all, he could not convince the people about his ideas as they are not supported by concrete reasoning. What he has made us aware of is not convincing enough to prove the existence of God. He does not satisfactorily give justification of his claim that the relationship between the truth of the idea objective and the recognized truth of the event that brings about the idea is direct.

Adequacy of the two Descartes proofs for the existence of God

The first Descartes proof for the existence of God was based on nothing perfect can come from something less perfect. This argument left people questionable as it is possible for something perfect to be borne by something imperfect. Something cannot come from anything. There are so many things in the universe existing and are believed to come from nowhere. In his second proof for the existence of God, his reasoning was based on the powers and action which are used to take care of something, its the same power which would be required in the creation of something new. This is not true because sometimes the power needed to create something is more than the power required to take care of it. The reality must be seen in the cause in the same manner as in the effect (Cahn, 350).

Descartes proof of the existence of God was made adequate by some factors which include; he considered that through the facts of the natural light there is truth in the efficient thing and complete cause as it is in its effect (Cahn 361). Secondly, it was based on the fact that in any idea there is one set objective to guide it instead of any other. Thirdly, he argued that if the objective set in his ideas is of that nature, then its not in him, and such he can not be the original cause of it. Descartes, therefore, concluded that he was not doing things and reasoning alone but with another being existing in him which can be referred to as the cause of all those ideas. This was meant to convince people but in reality, he was reasoning alone. The fourth factor which Descartes put in place was that his major idea was of a perfect God; it was then an objective with the utmost reality in it.

He suggested that its only God who can be the main cause of such an efficient idea and the fact that such an idea exists and has an efficient and complete cause. It was so definite to him that God exists (Sarkar 125) On the other hand, he doesnt give us complete and sufficient proof of the clear and distinct idea which he claimed to have of a God who is perfect.

In the second proof for Gods existence, Descartes questioned himself whether he has any power which can manage to preserve his existence. He forgot that he also had some responsibilities to take care of himself (Sarkar 205). The other factor he put into consideration was the fact that parents had the capability of bringing him into the world, but creating and preserving him was beyond their potential. The parents and the people around him were capable of protecting him from any form of physical harm. Finally, he concluded that its only God who had the power to create him and enrich him with perfect ideas of God. One is born with wisdom, but knowledge and ideas are learned from other people. In both proofs of Descartess existence of God, he educates himself to the belief that God who doesnt deceive exist, he as well exists and relies on external sources for his ideas.

The two proofs of Descartess existence of God are linked to his methods of doubt. In his methods of doubt, he was trying to do away with the foundation upon which his past beliefs were based on. At this point, he was trying to deny the truth and try to convince himself as well as others. He wanted to adopt a new set of beliefs that was indubitable (Cahn 510). He tried to achieve this by making his current beliefs unworthy and introducing himself to other beliefs. He planned to apply this based on three arguments; one is to outdo the idea of relying on the body senses. This was unacceptable as no one can believe that its true to doubt what his/her physical body organs like hands are doing as it is very evident. There is then the problem of the dream and the belief of having God who deceives.

Relationship between the two Descartes proof and his method of doubt

Through his method of doubts, Descartes manages the following; first in cogito, whereby he argues that he is there and he exists which appears true to his mind whenever that idea occurs in his mind. Secondly, he stands on the fact that God exists, existence is perfection, and therefore under no circumstances can this God deceive (Cahn 750). In this, he was capable of doing away with the first preconceived idea of God who deceives. Finally, he brought about his defense of dualism. He could not completely give an explanation based on dualism. In the course of his doubts, he realizes that it was not so easy to understand his mind or the nature of the material things unless one decides to take them as completely distinct. This shows that he was not so sure about what he was doing.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Descartess proof of the existence of God is not supported by well-argued points. For instance, he tries to make people think that whatever they perceive in the physical world is fancy out of pure imagination, which means that nothing exists physically. Convincing people to doubt even their bodys physical status and the functioning of the physical body organs is quite impossible. This was not true for many. Descartes also tries to make people believe that things are not the way they are seen, at first glance which distorts the way of living of people and their way of thinking. Descartes as well was not in a position to explain fully the mind-body dualism.

Works Cited

Cahn, M.S. Classics of Western Philosophy. Hackett Publisher Company, 2007.

Sarkar H. Descartes Cogito: Saved From The Great Shipwreck. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Introduction

The essay on the problem of evil has been a focus of argument since the sixteenth and the eighteenth century. The argument about the theodicy problem in the early modern philosophy was as a result of the new scientists dream. The dream was about a perfect science that could explain everything on the surface of the earth. Philosophers have treated theodicy philosophically by use of ideas to explain the challenge of sin in the present world and theologically to identify, understand and justify sin.

These intriguing questions about God are: Is God able to prevent sin? Is He willing to prevent sin? Is God powerful and good? If God is not able to prevent or unwilling to prevent sin, then He is impotent and malevolent, thus consistent with the existence of sin. If God is all powerful and benevolent, then there should not be a problem with sin (Kremer, 17). In this paper, the focus will be on Hicks idea that God is responsible for the continuation of sin.

The attributes of God as good and powerful may not be fully understood by human beings. In addition, atheists argue that Gods attributes should be defined based on genuine theodicy showing the consistency in relating God with evil, and not just hypothetical (Kremer, 21).

Francisco Suarez: Gods involvement in sinful acts

Suarez argued that God is the cause and answerable to every effect produced by human beings. However, the immorality of sin cannot be traced to God as a source. Suarez classified moral sins into two categories: a sinful act that has a rational good will, but has defects in due perfection with regards to a free action and evil of punishment as lacking due good inflicted as a result of sin. He also implied that some of the sins human suffer are not in any way related to their faith. In faith, all the sins that befall humans are as a result of sin (Kremer, 34).

This is especially the original sin as Gods initial intention when he created man was to keep him free from sin, suffering, and death. Natural sin is traced from the imperfect power that cause them resulting in imperfect effects. These evils are indirectly traceable to God who is the origin. Therefore, evil is not intended by God, but He permits it. On the other hand, other causes of sins can be willed by God as He cannot just be the cause of evil, but also the cause of other kinds of evil (Kremer, 65).

For something to occur, there should be a first cause that is received by a secondary cause resulting in the final completion of the secondary cause by producing certain effects. The occurrence is a manner of principles because the action of the secondary power result in a complete power. Suarez, in his conclusion, stated that God concurs with human actions since He freely offers occurrences.

He emphasized that, for human beings not to sin, they must have the ability to be self determiners with Gods concurrence, which is not the case. In addition, he agreed with the Catholic doctrine that God is the provider of the world. Therefore, every action affected in the world is either knowingly intended by God or knowingly permitted by God (Kremer, 79).

Many writers deny the the perfectness of God in moral goodness, but Christian writers have not denied good as omnipotent. An early religion that was rival to Christianity believed that God did not have the power that could stop bad from occurring.

In fact, they considered both good and bad powers equally strong. Many theologians in the past have talked vaguely concerning the weakness of God in relation to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, it is not clear if they thought God could not prevent Christs crucifixion (Kremer, 81).

Some Christian theologians have claimed that God allows evil to occur for the purpose of good. The followers of Christian traditions are worried about moral sin than natural evil. In the Christian history, natural evil was seen to be inevitable. In this case, humans were seen as immoral and embodied as many things could harm them. Augustine pointed out that natural suffering could be intended for the good purpose if the choices were made for the good purposes (Kremer, 92).

Gods and Humans responsibility

God did not ignore human responsibility for having the sovereign responsibility over his creation. Christ freed sinners from captivity even though believers still battle with the devil and the struggle against own sinful desires. Human beings do not have the power to overcome the sinful desires without the help of the holy spirit. It is a mystery that sin continues in the lives of humans after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and can only be taken out by daily repentance.

Christian considers moral evil in relation to human freedom and responsibility that involves right or wrong. Some philosophers argue that God should have created human beings who do not sin. In the same breath, He would have created people who are genuinely free and guaranteed to act rightly. This argument has caused contradiction that God made humans as genuinely independent in relation to Him (Cheetham 72).

Another contradicting argument is that God gave human freedom in relation to Him. Hick explained that this is not a genuine freedom: that a person is shaped by God and the same applies to the nature of his or her actions. Hick also argued that humans have no ability to explain a free act.

Therefore, the mystery of human freedom would always relate in understanding the origin of evil. Suffering as a result of sin draws a connection between freedom and moral evil (Cheetham 91). In this case, the moral incompetence of humans causes them a great deal of suffering.

Some pain and suffering that man undergoes through as a result of sin. In some cases, the suffering is not necessarily as a result of sin or rather due to the structure of the earth. In such cases, the theodicy follows a negative path hence does not support the argument that human suffering is for the divine good purpose. God had an intention to create a perfect world for a perfect and a completely created human being.

The world is full of hardship that Hick considered not to have been made by a perfectly benevolent and powerful God. According to Christians, the world was intended to be a comfortable place for the inhabitants without pain and suffering. However, it is seen as a soul making place of suffering to enable human become heirs of internal life (Cheetham 93).

The nature of sin, as advocated for by Hick, makes it necessary for human beings have a reason for committing sin. This seems to conflict with the nature of sin because it makes it hard to explain. For instance, when a person makes a wrong deed, the individual usually has a choice not to do so.

The fact that a person might go ahead and do it means that there is some motivation involved. Whatever action one takes, it always serves to satisfy a certain desire. Those opposing the claims of the soul-making project make the nature of sin seem inexplicable and irrational. In response to this, Hick questioned why God created creatures acting in an unreasonable and inexplicable way. If one tries to answer this question, one can end up attributing the origin of sin to God (Cheetham 97).

Conclusion

Some Christian atheists considered the death of Jesus as one of the worst thing that had ever happened out of the bad. The initial intention of God for sending his beloved son to the earth was to save the human race. The question is about why did the blood of Jesus fail to restore the relationship between man and God back to where it was before man sinned.

This could have meant that the salvation through the blood of Jesus was perfect. Some of these questions may not be understood by man. In a way, I agree that the continuation of sin is Gods will as He has power over every creation. Thus, only God can stop the occurrence of sin. God is good and powerful. Thus, whether He allows sin to continue or not, His intentions are always good as it was in the beginning of creation.

Works Cited

Cheetham, David. John Hick: A Critical Introduction and Reflection. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003. Print.

Kremer, Elmar J. The Problem of Evil in Early Modern Philosophy. Toronto [u.a.: Univ. of Toronto Press, 2001. Print.

Introduction

The quest as to whether a good and benevolent God exists is a philosophical question inwhich both theists and atheists have invested greatly. For a theist, a good and benevolent God exists; a God absolutely committed to goodness and merciness.

On the other hand, atheist holds the position that evil experienced in the world is a clear indication that either this world is not the best to live or there is no such being as good and benevolent god. The aim of this paper therefore, is to show that, the presence of evil in the world does not in any way contradict the existence of a benevolent God.

For atheists, evil is intrinsically opposed to absolute good. There is so much evil in the world! Therefore, there is no absolute good in the world. What this argument means is that, evil and absolute good cannot coexist at the same time in the same manner. Therefore, it is rationally plausible that, either there is an absolute good in the world; hence God exists, or this world is not the best because evil is witnessed in it; thus God does not exist.

And since it is incontestable, that there is evil in this world, therefore atheists conclude that God does not exist. If God exists, than he is not as good and benevolent as purported by theists, or God is either a sadist or incapable of controlling what he is alleged to have created. For atheists, this forms the fundamental argument against the existence of a good and benevolent God.

Conversely, theists argue that this world is the best because it is created by a benevolent God. And evil experienced in the world is used by God to achieve some good. That God is so powerful that he can use any means whatsoever as long as some intended good is achieved. Therefore, the presence of evil in the world does not in any way whatsoever contradicts the existence of a benevolent God.

Both arguments are logically conceivable, and both contestants can argue their case infinitely. However, atheists have raised a very strong logical objection as to whether God exists, and if he does is he good? They argue that the world is full of evil of all kind. For instance, parents who die in a road accident leaving behind a day old baby, or HIV virus that is claiming many lives. If there is God, then is he so careless as to just sit watching at all these evil happenings without even lifting a finger to evade them?

The objection from atheists is very logical and convincing. This is because it is illogical to think that absolute good and evil can coexist. However, the case argued by theists is equally strong because if God is not limited by anything, then he may use what is perceived as evil to bring greater intended good. For example, if a man prays for his flight only to go to air port and find the plane has left, such a man sees evil but only when the plane crashes killing everyone, that man is able to see good.

The theist position would be challenged with such questions as; who created evil? And whether God at the point of creation foresaw the imminent evil in the world, and if so why did he allow it?

Despite of such heated debate, it is evident that there is so much good in the world as compared to evil. Therefore, a few cases of evil are not enough to conclude that God does not exist.