In fact, Macbeth becomes fascinated by them, "would they had stayed." Banquo serves as his conscience, perhaps representing the period audience who would have also thought the witches to be evil and unnatural, and warns him of the dangers of trusting such supernatural messengers; a warning that goes unheeded. After hearing the prophecy, Macbeth already thinks about, "murder," and becomes preoccupied with thoughts of becoming king showing the powerful hold they have over him with only one meeting, scaring the audience who would have believed in Witches. Macbeth believes the Witches as there first prophecy came true and ignores the fact that they’re evil beings whereas Banquo recognizes them for what they are. He even informs his most beloved, Lady Macbeth, who also shares his ambition.
If God exists and has the capability to be powerful, good, omniscient and omnipotent, why would he let evil be perpetrated? Is a God unable to suppress the evil or does he have no solution to problem of evil? The thesis posited by Mackie that evil exists and there is no God to stop the evil is still relevant to today. We still have wars, incurable diseases and struggles on this planet.
Creon has the appearance of good, but when he chooses to not bury Polyneices, which goes against the beliefs of the Gods by not honoring him, he shows his tragic flaw. He says, “But Polyneices, killed as piteously, an interdict forbids that anyone should bury him or even mourn.” (192). Through disobeying the Gods, Creon implies that his laws are more important than the Gods. Creon’s disregard towards the Gods, explains why he dismisses Tiresias’s power. Creon’s overall power grants him his free will.
But if you wish it so, we shall obey you. Rather shall we be evil with you than good with all our brothers. May the Council have mercy upon both of our hearts” (Anthem, pg.10). This explains International 4-8818 fear of moral judgement and not wanting to take responsibility for his actions, which explains his failure of pronouncing judgement, according to Rand’s
Therefore after punishing the king, Dionysus says “And if you had known how to be wise when you did not wish to be, you would have acquired Zeus' son as an ally, and would now be happy.” The author explains that peace and happiness can only be achieved by praying to the Gods and that making the Gods your enemy never a good thought. When the grandfather of the kings asks for forgiveness saying, “Gods should not resemble mortals in their anger.” Dionysus replies, “My father Zeus approved this long ago”. From the above we can say that even a God could be unforgiving and unsympathetic. Gods, like mortals, in anger can be very punishable and prejudiced. Also a king cannot rule without the favor of the Gods.
The chorus states, “How shall it seem good? What hope is there? Do you not see that you were wrong? How you have been wrong, it is not a pleasure for me to say, and pain for you.”(Aeschylus 261). This quote means that Prometheus does not believe that giving the creation of fire to the humans was not a bad idea and is willing to accept any punishment.
Saint Anselm came up with the ontological argument that only a fool would believe that God does not exist. An ontological argument is hand in hand with a Platonic a priori where there is a strong attempt made to prove that God exists by the concept of his existence. Saint Anselm’s argument is that even someone thick minded, or has a low IQ can state that there is a God, and for this to be possible, God must exist. He backs his argument up by comparing what is imagined up in the mind and what is in reality. Reality is existence, and imagining something up is nonexistent.
According to a philosopher, Pascal Wenger, one 's belief about God existing is based on self-interest. He argues that it is in our interest to believe that God exists and hence from his point of view it is rational for us human beings to do so. Furthermore, he adds that if we believe in God 's existence and he truly exists then, we are bound to receive a reward in heaven but if he doesn 't exist we won 't have lost a thing. Finally, he concludes those who do not believe in God 's existence; then he exists they are bound to receive an endless penalty in heaven. Also, other arguments about the existence of God include the ontological perspective which tries to argue from the point of abstract reasoning.
Later on in the play, Macbeth asserts his right over Lady Macbeth, flipping their dynamic, and distances himself from her,"be innocent of the knowlded dearest chuck." He no longer confides in his most trusted confidant showing his descension into paranoia and obsession with control. The natural order of the universe is disrupted when they murder the king and chaos it unleashed. This is shown in the aftermath: Macbeth hallucinates, Lady Macbeth
On the one hand, Macbeth has no control over his destiny, and is merely a pawn of fate. On the other hand, fate actually does use Macbeth’s own character to accomplish its ends, so in that sense he is not merely a pawn. Because he is not merely a pawn, he retains a certain responsibility for his actions, and because he retains responsibility, he retains something of his freedom. Another way of saying this is to say that Macbeth’s destruction is fated and yet Macbeth is also guilty. That sounds like a paradox, of course.