As a counter argument it is faulty, and ultimately fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the traditional God exists and has an adequate reason for evil. In a court of law, the burden of proof falls onto the prosecution to prove their claim beyond a reasonable doubt while the defense counters their position by establishing some doubt. The prosecution can be seen as Craig as he claims the existence of a God, whereas Sinnott-Armstrong’s atheism only exists in relation to theism. Atheism is a response to theism but theism is an idea in itself, independent of atheism. In other words, without theism atheism would not exist, as such without a claim made by the Crown the defense is not needed.
Swinburne first writes of the “freewill defense” which is because of the ability for human beings to choose morality there is good and evil within the world (Swinburne, pg.83). The author objects to the freewill argument. The first main argument by Swinburne which is the response if God is omnipotence or with unlimited power why could not he just restrict our morality to good characteristics in his likeliness? (Swinburne, pg.83-84) The second argument in “Is There a God?” which adds to the first argument is could God have dwindled our ability to be evil and granted us greater goodness while still maintaining freewill? (Swinburne, pg.84) Theist would disagree.
Galen Strawson argues in his work, The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility, the theory that true moral responsibility is impossible. This theory is accurate whether determinism is true or false. Strawson describes this argument as the Basic Argument. He claims "nothing can be causa sui- nothing can be the cause of itself" (212). Yet, one must be causa sui to achieve true moral responsibility.
Ayn Rand presents an argument against individual rights in her essay, Man’s Rights. She believes that these rights do not actually exist outside of the right to life and the right to property; or less specifically, the right to action. Many critics see flaws in her argument however, finding flaws in her reasoning. Rand attempts to argue that egoism and rights entail each other. Egoism being the theory that believes that selfishness is the foundation of morality.
I stand to agree with the statement, it is not acceptable to anyone to commit a wrong against the other, it is wrong for one to fail to observe ethical principle for not believing in the existence of God. One can affirm to theological voluntarism while being morally skeptic cannot affirm without being morally skeptic. The statement is correct, one can do what is generally expected of morally, he/she can be skeptical or not, but fundamentally should observe moral principles. Normative theological voluntarism and moral skepticism is not a coherent combination of views. The two can exist divergently, for the view of being morally skeptical and believing in normative theological voluntarism or believing in normative theological voluntarism and not being morally skeptical.
The argument states the existence of evil is impossible under the attributes of God. It is evident evil exists but it is not clear whether God exists. The purpose of Mackie’s and Plantinga’s argument is to prove whether or not God exist based on the existence of evil. Mackie does not agree on the existence of God and uses philosophy to prove it. He believes that there is no rational evidence that
Mackie’s Arguments Against Ethical Objectivism According to the book The Fundamentals of Ethics, it is stated that ethical objectivism “is the view that moral standards are objectively correct and that some moral claims are objectively true” (Shafer-Landau, p. 294). It is the belief that each individual or person has their own set of moral principles. J.L Mackie explains two arguments against ethical objectivism, which include the argument from relativity and the argument from queerness. In addition he explains and defends his error theory. He states his claim that they are no objective values and that ethical statements are false.
In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, Mackie explains that evil is only a problem for those who believe in God. Mackie further says that God being omnipotent and wholly good while evil exists is contradictory. This raises questions about how could a wholly good being exist but also have evil around and why would it exist if God could allow evil to happen. Mackie then goes into explain solutions so that “omnipotence,” “wholly good,” and “evil” stop contradicting each other. Mackie says the only way to believe that evil exists, if you do believe that evil does in fact exist, is to either say God is not wholly good or not as omnipotent.
His reasonings support his overall idea that an unjust law or act, does not defend retaliating through unjustly means. Additionally, both King and Socrates are on a disaccord concerning the determining factor of just and unjust behavior. While Socrates relies on rational argument to be the expert on justice and the morality law, King sees the determining factor as grounded from God. As shown above, both Socrates and King have differing views on the obligations of a citizen in respects to the laws of the
The concept of inclusivity for a christ-centered theist is, unsupported because God wont take nonbelievers into heaven. Christ-centered theists believe the law of non contradiction is true because, God wont let there be two things true at the same time. This one is rational because morality is based on something and not subjective.