Response Essay Assignment phil201

.docx

School

Liberty University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

201

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Jun 7, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MateJaguar3770

Response Essay Assignment: Good, Evil, and God Phil 201 11/28/2023 By: Dalton Snipes

There are two different types of problems presented in Dew and Gould’s book in chapter thirteen. You have the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil. The logical problem infers that since there is evil in the world there is no God, because they are incompatible and cannot coexist. (Dew & Gould, 2019) Then we have the evidential problem which infers that God does not exist because the existence of so much pointless evil in the world. The answer for the logical problem of evil as stated by Plantinga is God has created us to be free will creatures, and as such, it would be impossible to be a free will creature if God always made us choose the right path. The answer for the evidential problem of evil that I agree with is skeptical theism, which states God has a justified reason for evil, but we as finite beings are not able to know what they are. (Dew & Gould, 2019) In reading God, Evil, and the Human Good by Pruitt, I find that he is using the Free Will Theodicy and the Soul-Making Theodicy in compliment to one another to bolster his own theodicy. In the writing Pruitt introduces his three principles that formulate his theodicy. His first true principle is, “ God can justifiably allow some evil if it realizes some worthwhile good that would not otherwise be possible.” (Pruitt, 2014) This lines up with the Soul-Making Theodicy as mentioned by Dew and Gould saying that a basically sometimes evil or hard times is necessary for the building of character and the growth of a person to get where they are supposed to be in life. Next, Pruitt inserts his 2 nd true principle saying that, “God cannot do the logically impossible.” (Pruitt, 2014) This lines up with the Free Will Theodicy that Augustine of Hippo argued that God really did make free will creatures, and through the misuse of their creaturely freedom, bring about evil. (Dew & Gould, 2019) Pruitt is saying just as Augustine in his Free-Will Theodicy and Plantinga in his Free-Will Defense said in essence that God cannot make 2+2=5 or make a married bachelor. Meaning that God created humans as free will creatures and if God intervened and made us choose the non-evil path then we would not be free will creatures, but perfect creatures. Then, he moves to his last true principle stating, “For an agent to achieve its telos, it must do so with internal integrity.” (Pruitt, 2014) This principal lines up again with the Soul-Making Theodicy. Pruitt states that as people we have a telos or end goal. Pruitt’s proposed telos has three dimensions, “ First, being rightly related to God as his image bearers. Second, being rightly related to other humans in community, and third being rightly related to the earth as its rulers.” (Pruitt, 2014) In order to have completed this telos, or end goal humans have to develop their character, which comes from habitation and the practice of virtues. (Pruitt, 2014) Dumsday has many good arguments here that speak to me and help my mind work through divine hiddenness, how God works, and how He reveals Himself to us. Thought the one argument that stands out to me as the strongest is the one in which he talks about under the heading, “Lewis on the Inherent Difficulty of Divine Self-Disclosure.” (Dumsday, 1995) Here Dumsday speaks of how a creator of something, example playwright or an architect, would not be in the play or building they had created. He explains you would not find an architect in one of the walls or pieces in the building, just the same as a playwright would not be in the play. They are the creators and as such they are outside the creation or hidden from the creation so to speak. Dumsday goes on to make the assertion that as far plays go, the writer is not seen until the play is over and the curtain has closed. This is a great analogy

to the Second Coming of Christ and made a lot of sense as to why God exists but is outside of what we can figure out from a natural sense. Then, Dumsday goes on to say that God can reveal Himself indirectly, example would be the burning bush, even then could be put doubt upon what the experience really was, as it is not totally confirmable. The fact is God could reveal Himself in many ways today, examples are the miracles He has performed and the fact that He came to Earth in human form (Jesus) and people that saw them and Him (Jesus) still did not believe/did not want to believe what could convince them now? At some point there has to be an element of faith for someone to believe God is real, but that is a idea for another place and time. Lastly, Dumsday talks about the eschaton, or the end of the world as we know it and infers now everyone will come face to face with God (to many peoples dismay) and have no doubt that he is in fact real. But for know one could ask why God doesn’t just go ahead and make it easy for us to see Him and believe. Lewis in Dumsday’s article says that basically infers that God is giving us a chance to choose Him freely of our om free-will. Which makes sense because of what the Bible says in John 20:25-27, “The other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” So, he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe. And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving but believing. “And then Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Dew and Gould’s section on divine hiddenness would go hand in hand with what Dumsday is explaining in his article. As discussed above Dumsday infers that God is outside of His own creation and outside of its time and finite knowledge, but He (God) does/has revealed Himself indirectly thorough out time with many different signs, miracles, and even coming to Earth as Jesus. This idea is present in both the writing of Dew and Gould as well as Dumsday, but Dew and Gould go further in saying t he evidence is there to see in the article using Romans 1:20 saying, “ God’s existence and nature have been revealed to all through that which he has made “so that people are without excuse.” (Dew & Gould, 2019) They (Dew and Gould) further expound on the fact that God has made Himself visible to all people through What He has created. Another correlation between Dumsday and Dew and Gould’s writings we are discussing here is they both make mention of the fact that God wants us to choose Him of our own free will and not to be coerced into believing in Him. Again, it feels like Dew and Gould dive deeper here also, saying that just because God is silent, doesn’t mean He is not there. They (Dew and Gould) make the point that His silence might speak louder than any verbiage. (Dew & Gould, 2019) Additionally, sometimes the divine hiding can cause some to doubt, but there is no need to be overly anxious about this divine hiding a look back at the saints will show a time of, “Manifest presence as well as times of divine absence.” (Dew & Gould, 2019) Also, God could be using the time of absence to strengthen us in ways we might no see at the time. Lastly, the

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help