The theodicist believes that it is better for a person to have that choice, though nearly everyone would naturally choose to help the person across the street, than to have no choice at all and be forced to help that person. Historically, the doctrine of the Trinity claims that there is only one God that exists as three individuals each of whom is God. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. God has the right to allow such evils to occur, so long as the 'goods' are facilitated and the 'evils' are limited and compensated in the way that various other Christian doctrines of human freewill, life after death, the end of the world, etc. They are totally dependent upon God and owe God a good life. While he presents many arguments to advance the belief that God exists, he argues that God is a being whose existence is metaphysically necessary.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that the purpose of this book is to promote his generic h S over actual theistic religions. For it can be reasonably concluded that God has passion and hatred like some ignoble persons. I don't intend to critique any of these tools and positions individually, as that would take me too far afield—and others have already done so quite skillfully. Theism also explains individual religious experience. Both of these authors discuss interesting motives from both sides of the issue: why and why not God should allow evil. If a hypothesis is to adequately explain some phenomenon, we must have grounds for confidence in the truth of this hypothesis; otherwise we might contrive any outlandish ad hoc hypothesis merely to fit the phenomenon without any regard for its truth.
Again, grounding his argument in a hotly disputed premise contradicts Swinburne's dictum to start from uncontroversial premises. This is a weak argument and in order to clarify those Swinburne argues that, although evils are bad, their existence is necessary for the existence of some types of goods. The Catholic pre-reformation formulation of the same issue is substantially different and is outlined below. There is no explaining going on here, merely explaining-away. Is he both able and willing? The first premise to fail the indisputability test is that is true, yet Swinburne's entire case for personal explanation in chapter 2 depends upon it.
He concedes that faith is a choice made by a person, but insists good reasons should be available to justify someone in making the decision to embrace Christianity. A 'greater good' case must begin by refuting every single fact and experience that supports what we all know to be true: that suffering is awful and should be prevented wherever possible. God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. His philosophical contributions are primarily in philosophy of reason and philosophy of science. Parents rightly allow a dentist to cause pain to their children for the greater good of healthy adult teeth.
Richard Swinburne gives a careful, clear examination of this problem, and offers an answer: it is because God wants more for us than just pleasure or freedom from suffering. By the same token, our ordinary moral practice recognizes a legitimate complaint about child abuse even if, as adults, its victims should happen to be on drugs that make them uninterested in complaining. I think that most people would suspect that this state of affairs howls for an explanation in comparison to the one in which there are just seven bills to spend. Both states are desirable, but the former is ultimately a greater good. Later Greek and Roman theologians and philosophers discussed the problem of evil in depth.
Some texts of the tathagatagarbha literature, such as the Mahaparinirvana Sutra actually refer to an atman, though other texts are careful to avoid the term. This task does not require the identification of a plausible explanation of evil, and is successful if the explanation provided shows that the existence of God and the existence of evil are logically compatible. But for all that, he grandly concludes that the existence of evil in the world does not form a C-inductive argument against God, and the probability of God's existence is unimpaired. The problem of evil has been extended to non-human life forms, to include animal suffering from natural evils and human against them. Preview God may be expected to give humans significant responsibility for themselves and each other including responsibility for forming their own characters. Science cannot explain why the universe exists.
And inherent in the idea of God is that he is a solitary instance of his kind, a singleton. Many Indian religions place greater emphasis on developing the karma principle for first cause and innate justice with Man as focus, rather than developing religious principles with the nature and powers of God and divine judgment as focus. If the virtues developed through soul-making are only valuable where suffering exists, then it is not clear that we would lose anything if suffering did not exist. Also found in: Webb, Stephen H. Kampen, the Netherlands: Kok Pharos publishing House.
He maintains that two types of explanation are available to human beings to explain phenomena: scientific explanation and personal explanation. Part three considers the actual evidence for the resurrection as an event such as the appearances of the risen Jesus and the empty tomb. God intends for a human soul to be embodied in this life and in life beyond death. Implicitly, he must hold that h is not identical with any God of an actual religion, for his definition of h contains no such references and is functionally independent of such connections. Although Swinburne has written prolifically on various aspects of religion—specifically, Abrahamic monotheism— The Existence of God Oxford University Press, 2004 is his centerpiece. An argument from evil claims that because evil exists, either God does not exist or does not have all three of those properties.