Advantages Of Divine Command Theory

He gave no evidence about the characteristics of the Judeo-Christian God and just basically said he proved God is real. Analogies like this do a good job at making you believe that there is a designer, but you have to do more to actually believe that the designer is God. To say right off the bat that you believed in God because of this analogy would not make much sense. If you tried to convince somebody that God was real you’re going to have to dive deeper into the conversation than this watch analogy. One of the reasons that lead me to believing in God is how complex we are.

Natural law theory states that people should focus on the good and avoid any evil. The last theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics which states that we should move from the concern towards good action and to focus on the concern with good character. This paper argues that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is better than the other ethical theories. The divine command theory says that what is morally right and what is morally wrong is determined by God and God alone. People who follow the divine command theory believe that God is the creator of all things, therefore, he must also be the creator of morally right and wrong acts.

More so, the belief in good and evil have been given to humanity by God, which defines the freedom of choice that explain the rationality of God’s existence as an omnipotent creator. Swinburne (1998) states the presumption of God’s existence on the premise of free will as a rational choice given to human beings to chose between good and evil: “Every moral evil in the world is that God allowing it to occur makes possible (given the assumption that humans have free will) the great good of a particular choice between good and bad” (Swinburne 223). In this argument, the rationality of God’s existence is rationalized through the belief that an all-powerful theistic God has given human beings free will. In this manner, the entire paradigm of theistic reasoning is constructed from religious texts, which assume that God is the overarching authority on what is real or not real in the human condition. More so, Swinburne feels that God has no obligation to allow all human beings to live on equal terms.

124). His other point is that God having a sufficient reason for permitting evil is not the same as having a hallucination. He states that having good reason for the existence of God increases the possibility that He has a reason for permitting gratuitous suffering (p. 124). He also counters the claim that there is no evidence to suggest that God is all-good and all-powerful. He refers to his moral argument—wherein without the existence of God, objective moral values would also cease to exist, but objective moral values do exist and thus God also must exist—to make the claim that God is all-good (p. 125).

Belief is not Decision Pascal’s Wager, the argument that an individual who believes in God’s existence is entitled to infinite gains. There are three objections against Pascal article, including “the wrong motivation”, “too many options” and “Belief not a decision”. Among these three reasonable objections, I believe that the strongest one is “Belief not a decision”, because everything needs a reason as people are born as rational creatures. Otherwise, people believe in the existence of God because they trust that God could bring benefits to them. For me, although the objection is reasonable, I still think the Pascal’s response is stronger.

These religious references build upon each other to develop Burgess’ notion that God created humans with free will, and how this leaves humankind flawed and prone to evil tendences. Though, despite this, humanity’s free will is the most important thing to both God and humanity itself. Burgess sees humans as beings

He thought this because he believed it involved that the elect that salvation that the elect could get could also be gained by the non elect person as a result of their own effort to salvation. Which I believe from my religion to not be true. I believe that anyone has the open and free will to receive salvation it's not only given to a specific group of people. But Calvin did not believe this to be true he believed that the reprobate are the people that God intentionally chooses to neglect, I don't believe that God neglects anyone that does not neglect him. John Calvin believed firmly in election and predestination and he backed his beliefs with biblical statements.

Augustine refutes Caelestius’ ideas by using Scripture to show that we are righteous only by the grace of God through Jesus Christ. He showed that Caelestius is unable to explain many texts that speak of the sinfulness of all humans. Caelestius challenges the idea that the fall resulted in our nature being corrupted so that it is unable to do

Religious people use the Bible to justify their moral “facts,” however skeptics use science and cold hard evidence to justify their side of the bargain. All things considered, belief is not just a topic that can be easily justified; belief can be impacted through factors such as religion and political party, and there is no telling in whose belief is the truest

'Higher law,' according to both King and Aquinas, comes from God and gives the universe its rational and moral order. Martin Luther King Jr. writes, "the universe in some form is on the side of justice" ("Power"). This quote shows that King thinks there is a justice higher than the justice of human law. King’s position is in agreement with that of Aquinas. Aquinas believes a human law that is in conflict with natural law is not actually a law: "a human law diverging in any way from the natural law will be a perversion of law and no longer a law" (Aquinas 54).