Is there a fallacy in the statement that starts with - If there is a God...

Many questions arise when studying philosophy of religion: mainly that of problems and inquiries from atheists questioning the principles of God and His existence. I was reading Descartes' "Meditations" and came across the following in the preface: "Thus all that atheists allege will give us no difficulty if only we remind ourselves that we should consider our minds to be finite and limited, and God to be an infinite and incomprehensible being."

Now, discarding any negative connotation concerning "atheists" back then and applying that statement to the more up-to-date definition of atheists, it seems there are certain contradictions when discussing the nature of God.  This became more apparent as I reflected upon the last blog regarding Mackie's article on problem of evil: "if there is an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, why does evil exist?"

The problem in its simplest form is this: The inquiry above can be re-written as "if there is [a being who is infinite and is impossible for a finite being like ourselves to exhaustively understand him], why does [an aspect of the world or an aspect of God contradict with my understanding of this world or god?]  Indeed, if we were able to understand God completely, we would be gods.  It is also why many theologians will tend to include the fact that we are unable to completely understand god in most of their responses to the questions thrown at them.

Our minds have their limits and this world has limits and boundaries that we are unable to surpass.  Many questions are left unanswered and have baffled the brightest of mankind for a long time.  It seems that as we strive to solve this puzzle that is this world, humans tend to become more arrogant.  Instead of becoming more humble, as answers to these questions tend to sprout more questions, we claim that we have found enough answers to disregard God as an option: that it is irrational and unreasonable to believe in a being greater than this universe.

Now, keep in mind that our strive and pursuit of knowledge is a healthy one and must be pursued by man (when I said/say man, it is not gender specific) born to do so.  We must continue on this journey of science whether it be theoretical physics or evolutionary biology.  As a Christian, I am thrilled to know how this world works and how it is so intricately woven together.  I had trouble grasping the concept that this world is imperfect (Theodicy, Gottfried Leibniz); imperfect for whom?  Of course, Leibniz meant that there were flaws present in this world but just like love - man and woman both have flaws but there are couples who are perfect together.

God is a being who reason alone can never seem to approach.  Does this mean that we can dismiss almost all claims and arguments against God?  Perhaps, but we shouldn't: it is true that many of the answers we provide may ultimately spiral down to the answer that "we are unable to gauge the depth of God", but this seems highly dogmatic.  Most of these questions are important and they must be addressed by those on either side of the fence (religious/non-religious).  As we must pursue a higher understanding of the universe through science, we must continue to pursue a higher understanding beyond science; perhaps some day those two will converge.

Problem of Evil: Can God be Perfectly Good and Omnipotent?

John Leslie Mackie from his article “Evil and Omnipotence” (1955) points out that certain traditional theistic views are in themselves fallacious and “that the several parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another”. His views are as follows:

The problem of evil, in the sense in which I shall be using the phrase, is a problem only for someone who believes that there is a God who is both omnipotent and wholly good… In its simplest form the problem is this: God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists. There seems to be some contradiction between these three propositions, so that if any two of them were true and third would be false. But at the same time all three are essential parts of most theological positions.

Mackie goes on to address the counter-arguments given by theists and although we will briefly take a look at those as I would like to be thorough in examining Mackie’s stance, I would like to try to explain how the main principles of theism can be non-contradictory by themselves in reflection to Christian scriptures and general teachings. This means that I will be dismissing the arguments in a similar fashion that Mackie dismisses these claims.

Greetings!

Welcome to my blog.

As I study Philosophy, I wanted to get a blog going to jot down my thoughts, tackle polemical issues on ethics and discuss other aspects of Philosophy.  I will try to exercise modesty in my thoughts as it is pointless to learn or rather it is impossible to learn without academic modesty.  It is also my intention to try and represent both sides of an argument to make sure all grounds are covered but at the end of the day, I will admit here and now, it is very easy for my bias to impede certain arguments.

I hope to hear your thoughts on these issues on the comments.