Seven Deadly Objections to Belief in the Christian God
The author’s overall argument
For the purpose of the present paper, the selected article is “Seven Deadly Objections to Belief in the Christian God ,” which was authored by Edwin Curley. The author’s perspective is that the God of the Bible does not exist. To argue for this, he provides seven central premises. The very first is predestination. He argues that the there is an incompatibility between God’s love and justice. He also maintains the notion that predestination is taught in the Bible. Therefore, according to him, the incompatibility means that the God of the Bible does not exist (Fogelin & Sinnott-Armstrong, 2001).
The second argument is that from Hell. He argues that little children, or minors for that matter, ought not to be subjected to eternal punishment. He also interprets the Bible as imposing a teaching that in the end, God will punish minors for their sins, eternally. He argues that a just and a loving God cannot consign most of his creation to spend in Hell eternally.
The third context that the author explores in order to affirm his standpoint is that of the original sing. According to him, the Bible teaches that infants are sinners too, and will be punished (Diller, 2000). He states that he does not agree on this teaching, and he indicates that he cannot understand how, despite its innocence, can punish an infant.
Respectively, the fourth and fifth objections relates to justification by faith and exclusivism. Curley feels that the justification by faith doctrine, which is strongly supported in Christian scriptures, leads to exclusivism (Fogelin & Sinnott-Armstrong, 2001). According to him, exclusivism represents the notion that all those that seems to reject the justification by faith doctrine ought to be damned, regardless of how good they may be. He mentions that the Bible teaches of God providing justifying faith to those people that He arbitrary selects, and excludes others. He sees this as unfair. He says that if God served His people in such an approach, it would be unfair for those not selected. He additionally indicates that it would be contrary to the idea of grace.
The sixth objection relates to the problem of the evil. According to the author, Christians strongly believe that indeed, God exists. He also recognizes the Biblical teaching that God is all-powerful, considering that he has the ability to create anything he wants. However, the author feels that if God was all-good, he would have created a world without evil. As such, evil would not exist on earth. However, it does and this makes him question the nature of the Christian God (Fogelin & Sinnott-Armstrong, 2001).
The last objection relates to the problem of morality. Curley provides that if divine command morality was true, it implies that God is liable to command nearly anything. He feels that this would be destructive when thought about normally. Based on this, the author tells that there is no validity in divine commanding morality idea (Diller, 2000).
Personal position on the article
The arguments that Craig puts forth are not agreeable, and are thus invalid. As it is evident, most of the article seems to battle a comparison between Christianity and philosophy. This is the very first reason for deeming the arguments unreliable. Due to his emphasis on comparing the two fields, it follows that he clearly shows his inability to recognize that these two fields are entirely different. As Jenkins (2007) revealed, it could be said as disrespectful to attempt and reason between the two. Hill (2003) added to this indicating that it is not appropriate to try and make reason out of the spiritual law based on worldly history and law. Indeed, considering that spirituality is the origin, such an attempt is a backward reasoning.
The author provides an account, which is sentimental in its attributes, of how he feels that the punishment in hell that his premature daughter is subjected to as not right. This is indeed agreeable. While this is the case, his understanding is inaccurate. As such, nowhere in the bible has been stated that an infant is to be summoned to hell. In Luke 12:48, it is indicated that, for an individual who is not aware, and does something wrong will be punished, however in a light way (Howson, 2011). Additionally, it is stated that when an individual has been provided with much, in return, much will be required, and that when much has been entrusted on a person, he or she should give even more to return the favor. Curley’s grandchild is innocent of blame, but has is comprised of sins, which the bible informs about every person being born with. Founded on the Bible, the author’s understanding is incorrect since the gates to Heaven are currently open for the dead infant.
Among the strongest arguments that the author advances is that related to predetermination to Hell. He seems to argue for the idea that God is fully aware of each person’s fate, and that it is through His will that everything happens. In this, Curley means that if God existed, humans would not be predestined to Hell due to His kindness. Such a standpoint is inaccurate, and it would be justified to assert that Curley seems to have misread some of the Biblical scriptures (Howson, 2011). Clearly, God describes that he intends to see each person on the Earth to ultimately have an eternal life in heaven. This can be inferred from 2nd Peter, chapter 3 verse 9, and in Romans 3:23. Besides, Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God, was sent to liberate humans from sins and this saving their souls. It is the faith, along with belief, in this that a person’s fate is determined. Given the idea that God provided free will to humans, every person has the ability to choose having faith in the son of God and live in Heaven eternally, or opt for the opposite and suffer forever in Hell. Therefore, different from what Curley states, the final decision is determined through humans, and not through God’s will (Howson, 2011).
The invalidity of Curley’s arguments could be argued in terms of their stability, in addition to, justification. Prior to drawing his conclusions, it seems that Curley’s arguments are not based on expansive research. This, in turn, undermines the credibility attributed to them. Additionally, rather than providing answers, the lack of credibility creates numerous questions. For instance, one would ask him or herself why the arguments brought forth withholds much attention. Rather than Curley focusing on attempting to understand his religion, through his arguments, the author spends much of his energy trying to providing worldly explanations and accounts, which one can easily comprehend. Such a context portrays the author’s argument as shifting the audience’s attention on God to societal research and information that Satan loves tossing at his very feet (Howson, 2011).