Should You Have to Defend Your Belief?

"If there is a God, why does he allow all the evil in the world?"

How often are you asked that question? And how often do you find yourself defending your faith in God? Should you have to? Do unbelievers permanently find themselves called upon to illustrate why they don't believe in God?

Atheists argue that there is no proof that God exists and see their stance as having solid foundations. But does it? Is there proof that he doesn't exist? Are there as a matter of fact stronger grounds for atheism than for theism?

Let's begin with the question of 'Knowledge'. Nothing is ever 100% certain, even historical 'facts', or scientific 'facts'. After all, it used to be a scientific fact that all the planets revolved nearby the Earth, it being the centre of the universe. So maybe some beliefs we have today will at last turn out not to be 'facts'.

It is very difficult to take a strong atheistic position and endeavor to give grounds for this. So why is it always believers who are called upon to prove their beliefs? Why don't we ask the unbelievers, the doubters, to prove that God doesn't exist?

This was the viewpoint of the philosopher, Ayer. He argued that the possibility of religious 'knowledge' is ruled out. The existence of a being defined as 'God' cannot be demonstrably proved. But he also said that it cannot be disproved either!

Let's look at the case for whether side.

The first seminar put up by unbelievers is commonly a comment of an all-loving, all-Powerful God. "What about all the disasters and suffering in the world that he allows to happen?" "What about itsybitsy children being murdered? What about rapes? The Holocaust? Mans' inhumanity to man. Why does God allow all the evil in the world?"

For some, this deliberate upon can be a great threat to faith. So let's look at moral evil as in the examples above. The seminar from atheists is commonly how can a loving God permit such terrible things to happen? God is love. And he is all Powerful. Couldn't he stop such evil?

Theists' acknowledge could be that God wanted his creation, man, to have free will. He didn't want robot-like beings. He wanted to give us the occasion to make good decisions, to be able to choose or to reject Gods' laws, to pass or fail his tests.

So why do men fail when we have the moral and intellectual capacity to distinguish good from evil? Why didn't God create beings who could resist temptations?

Consider this. If God is omniscient, he must have known in develop how his creatures would act, and therefore must have had good intuit to arrange matters as he did. He allows us to make our own moral choices, but like all good parents, he will punish us for any wrongdoings. Jesus said "As ye sow, so shall ye reap". The law of Karma, as in Buddhist traditions, makes sense of this. As believers in reincarnation, Buddhists state that karma is carried from life to life, and even if sinners are not punished in this life, they will get their comeuppance in the end.

So that's moral evil explained so that it still fits in with our idea of an all-loving God. But what about natural evil? For example, plagues, earthquakes, droughts, famine. Even if we can make sense of moral evil, can we do the same with natural evil? Can man and his free will be held responsible for this too?

Maybe in some instances they can. But the philosopher, Leibniz said "God created the best inherent world." He wanted man to have the occasion to make the right choices, to exercise his moral worth, to put others first. So did God create a world where he knew natural disasters would happen in order that man could prove himself? Make sacrifices to help or save others? Do natural disasters as a matter of fact go against the idea of an all-loving god?

He even intervenes 'miraculously' sometimes. So let's very briefly look at miracles. The term generally refers to a fortunate occurrence for which no immediate explanation is available. They are sometimes a transgression of a law of nature.

However, many habitancy don't see miracles as proof of the existence of God, because they dispute the existence of miracles. Testimonies of witnesses can be inadequate or unreliable.
But you don't have to believe in miracles to believe in the existence of God. So what other grounds for reliance are there?

One seminar centres nearby design. The universe is ordered and consistent. We can witness that all nearby us in nature. Believers argue that it couldn't have happened by chance. There must have been a designer, a inventor for all of it. However, Darwins' law of evolution is believed by many to catalogue for the developments, order and manufacture in the world.

In our three-dimensional, material world, it's very hard to conceive of such a being as God. It can be seen as rational not to believe in him. We have the evidence of our senses. We can't see him or hear him, but does that mean he's not there? So what about all these arguments for and against theism and for and against atheism? Can whether position as a matter of fact be proved or disproved?
Try this line of seminar the next time your faith is questioned. It's based on a quote from the philosopher, Descartes: "God possesses all perfections, and existence is a perfection." ... Therefore he exists!

Footnote: Definitions:
Theism = The reliance in a God who not only created the universe, but takes an active part or interest in it.
Atheism = Against knowledge of God.
A strong atheistic position = Stating we Know God doesn't exist.
A weak atheistic position = A reliance that God doesn't exist.

---

Coffee Ftx 40