Compare and Contrast the Three Readings
One of the most difficult things for the theist is to defend the existence of God. Considerably, for theists, this is one of the most difficult arguments to support in the light of many ways that the God they believe in or denies is seen, observed, or audibly heard. In the three writings by Habermas, Craig, and Thomas, there is a clear combination of similar but varying views that have focused on the arguments against and for the existence of God based on the existence of pain, evil and suffering that have always existed in nature and within the society.
The writings of Habermas, Craig, and Thomas are similar. Each of the articles has been written from a theistic perspective. One of the most common ideas in all the writings is the idea that outside the existence of God, there also exists the universal mortality that is common to all (Craig, 2008). Evil cannot be defined, and thus evil does not exist but is an attribute. In the words of William Craig, life would be illogical without God. Considerably the theme of Craig has been picked up by Tom Thomas in his writing, where he critiques Richard Dawkins and Habermas in the response about Atheists (Craig, 2008).
Craig discusses largely on the importance of God to the existence of man, whereas Habermas and Thomas discuss the meaning of God in human life. Additionally, most parts of the article have also discussed the legitimacy of Atheist’s teachers and books. Both Thomas and Habermas offer good critiques of the various types of arguments that atheists should be using that would be intellectually and logically stimulating while showing the theists’ view of God.
Can life have objective meaning without God?
Habermas has quoted Sam Harris, an atheist who says that the truth is that no one knows why or how the universe came into existence (Habermas, 2008). Considerably, if the atheistic argument is true, then this means that life has no meaning without God. Richard Dawkins argued from the perspective of the problem of evil and holds that there is no meaning to the existence of humans when bad or good things happen to an individual (Tom, 2018). Relatively, for life to have meaning, it has to have a specific purpose. Ideally, individuals tend to serve various purposes, and those purposes are part of the larger design of human life to exist. Therefore, it means that life has no meaning if one has no purpose and that a person cannot have a purpose or objective meaning without the existence of God.
Can life be good without an objective meaning
Life cannot be good without objective meaning. Ideally, the best a person can do is to live a subjectively good life with reference to their subjective meaning. According to Craig (2008), removing the objective meaning means removing God, and when God is removed, then the rights and wrong are removed. However, this is difficult in the existence of human beings. For instance, people cannot watch children being murdered. When God is removed, then such things will be permitted. When an individual agrees that these things are right, it is clear that the earth without God is insufficient.
The problem of evil argues that the existence of evil is mismatched. However, an all-powerful and benevolent God would not allow evil to exist and would prevent moral and natural catastrophes. If evil exists, this means that God is neither all-powerful nor benevolent. Considerably, evil is just an aspect but not a thing that can be formed. This is because everything has an opposite and equal reaction, and since God is good, evil has existed over the years as a force coexistent with God.
Craig, W. L. (2008). Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics. Crossway.
Habermas, G. R. (2008). The Plight of the New Atheism: A Critique. Faculty Publications and Presentations, 10.
Tom T. (2018). Suffering: Richard Dawkins Contra Jesus