One such philosopher is B.C Johnson. From the onset of his essay on “why doesn’t God Intervene to Prevent Evil”, he asks whether it is likely for us to describe as good any person who stands and watches a young baby being burned painfully to death as a result of a house catching fire. His concern is that anybody present and with the ability to save the child from the burning house is has a moral duty of saving the child. Basing on this example, he asks why then is impossible for an all-powerful God to be impossible to intervene in the myriad of evil and sufferings that visits humans at all time. Given as such, Johnson throws the argument that this God cannot be characterized as good at all. (Johnson 123) In Answer to this, he notes that the probable answer would be that the child would go to heaven, to which he notes that his or her potential to go to heaven is totally irreverent considering the pain and agony that the child is subjected to. If the baby was required in heave, then, in his argument, given the baby’s innocence, the suffering that the baby undergoes is, in all respects, not justifiable given that there is no single reason given of why God allows it, or an explanation of inability to help the
One such philosopher is B.C Johnson. From the onset of his essay on “why doesn’t God Intervene to Prevent Evil”, he asks whether it is likely for us to describe as good any person who stands and watches a young baby being burned painfully to death as a result of a house catching fire. His concern is that anybody present and with the ability to save the child from the burning house is has a moral duty of saving the child. Basing on this example, he asks why then is impossible for an all-powerful God to be impossible to intervene in the myriad of evil and sufferings that visits humans at all time. Given as such, Johnson throws the argument that this God cannot be characterized as good at all. (Johnson 123) In Answer to this, he notes that the probable answer would be that the child would go to heaven, to which he notes that his or her potential to go to heaven is totally irreverent considering the pain and agony that the child is subjected to. If the baby was required in heave, then, in his argument, given the baby’s innocence, the suffering that the baby undergoes is, in all respects, not justifiable given that there is no single reason given of why God allows it, or an explanation of inability to help the