I should like to begin with the defining of the term Theism
This is the belief that one or more divinities are immanat in the world, yet transend it, along with the idea that divinity(s) is/are omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent and omnibenevolent. My point is that you cannot by definition have an omnipotent omnipresent omniscient God without that God being evil (Thus disproving the idea of Omni-benevolence.) If God was omniscient, thus knowing what the future beholds and fails to use perfect Devine powers to stop an atrocity to occur then the God is by any standards evil. If evil occurs or an evil act comes upon us an all-mighty God must know beforehand, knowing this and not providing adequate warning of a coming disaster would be doing nothing more then contributing to the evilness of the earth. An apologist will make the statement stating the evil doer’s free will (or the Judeo-Christian consequential will) is respected or unhampered by God. Well by definition it would make the idea of omniscience implausible.
Okay let’s ignore the previous point and say free will was provided to us by God. Well by doubting Gods or Jesus’ Divinity (considered the greatest sin) you will be of course sent to eternal hell. It seems rational that if God loves us more then our own parents the most mercy would be given to us (within the bounds of justice) to prevent the possibility of him burning his children. To believe in the existence of God the burden of proof must lie with the theist and not of the atheist or agnostic because our ideology means we are skeptical to the idea of celestial totalitarian big brother and demand evidence for our believing. It seems as if an Omni-benevolent God would be more liberal in providing undeniable evidence that is not based on fictional hearsay thus making us a more moral people and negate the need for an eternal punishment.
Your Contrarian Author,
Charles Brown
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment