The divine command theory remains one of the most common theories used to explain the link between ethics, morality and religion. Divine command theory remains a highly controversial issue and has been criticised by a number of philosophers namely Kai Nielsen, Plato, Socrates and J.L Mackie as well as receiving support from philosophers such as Philip Quinn and Thomas Aquinas (Wierenga, 2009). The arguments for and against this theory has practical and theoretical significance, both philosophers of religion and moral philosophers have interest in exploring the role of religion in moral thought. (Wierenga, 2009) The divine command theory associates moral goodness to what God commands or Gods will (Berg, 1993). In its purest form it postulates
The Ten Commandments dictate the choices and behavior of the Christian and Jewish traditions; given that it serves as the direct word of God. These divine expectations of the people are the path to salvation and righteousness if one chooses to follow them. The Ten Commandments were revealed to Moses by God on a mountain and are later emphasized throughout the Hebrew Bible. However, the prophets, who are chosen by God, stress several other commandments that are not necessarily listed in the Ten Commandments. Even though many of the prophets lived at different time periods, many of their messages are consistent, such as the emphasis on repentance.
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins emphasizes on four theses that roughly entail his argument. Science is evidence based whilst faith is blind, If God created everything, who created Him, morality does not depend on a creator, and the Christian religion is perilous to society. His writing forces the reader to ponder the validity of religion. Dawkins adamantly states that religion can either be fully true or false. If proven false, it is the duty the intellectually conscience to refute.
Philosophy Hamad aldawood Monday, March 19, 2018 Introduction The Ontological Argument was proposed by Saint Anselm to try and ascertain the existence of God. Anselm’s argument is based on the fact that there is a specific concept of God. It establishes the existence of God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" (Roth, 1970, p.270). From Saint Anselm’s argument, it is apparent that Ontological Arguments are mostly deductive and a priori. These arguments intend to determine God’s existence mostly through logic and non-aligned to experience.
I just have every right to defend myself. Don’t worry — I have heard Leviticus 20:13. I’ve had it hatefully thrown at me more times than i can even count. But not once has it actually convinced me because- a quote isn’t an argument! Again, I did state at the end that this wasn’t completely true and that I posted it because of the point it raises, that this isn’t some black and white issue- that the answer, “God said so” just isn’t an acceptable answer anymore.
If the first is culled, it would implicatively insinuate that whatever God commands must be good: even if he commanded someone to inflict suffering, then inflicting suffering must be moral. If the latter is culled, then morality is no longer dependent on God, vanquishing the divine command theory. Also, if God is subject to an external law, he is not sovereign or omnipotent, which would challenge the orthodox conception of God. Proponents of the Euthyphro dilemma might claim that divine command theory is conspicuously erroneous because either answer challenges the competency of God to give moral
The text also says the Son subjects Himself to the Father, but this is not ontological subordination. Paul does not seem to see any problem in acknowledging authority in this instance. Again, as alluded to above, being under authority does not mean that one is ontologically inferior, insofar as the New Testament is concerned.
Euthyphro’s Dilemma is when Socrates asks Euthyphro, “Does God love goodness because it is good, or is it good because God loves it?” Euthyphro’s Dilemma is that God determines what is good and evil, right and wrong. This dilemma challenges the Divine Command theory because according to Euthyphro’s Dilemma we would be obligated to do something wrong because God commanded it. This conflicts with the Divine Command theory because it would imply that cruelty could be morally right if God told us to do so. The idea that cruelty can be morally right goes up against the belief in the Divine Command Theory because it proposes that an action's status that is morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God
Anselm provided the first ontological argument for the God’s existence. Ryan stringer defends two type of argument from completion against the existence of God. The first ones are inductile and thus present disbelief as a tentative conclusion, while the second one is separating and thus purports to lastly show separating based on the logical
When discussing the philosophy of God’s plausible existence, several well composed arguments are presented, from Anselm’s Ontological Argument based the definition of God, to the Teleolgical argument grounded in the idea that a complex creation demands an intelligent creator; additionally, many debate that there is no need for a rational explanation as we are required in the nature of belief to take ‘leap of a faith’ regarding the existence of God. While each side offers valuable insight into this dilemma, I would argue that neither fully proves the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God. However, as I will discuss in the rest of the paper, the Teleolgical Argument and Kierkengaard’s faith eliminates dread argument when combined can reasonably provide evidence for the existence of God. Out of the five major opinions for God existence in regards to reason, the Teleolgical argument does the best job of not just proving a God exists but