Even though I do not believe in the Divine Command Theory, I still believe in God, and that he is the creator of all things. I think that God’s goodness is rooted in nature, and it is in his nature to do good. However, I do not think this alone can prove that the Divine Command Theory is true. The Divine Command Theory implies that we know what God approves or disapproves of, but really no one knows for sure. So, we must rely on our own understanding
However, his claims can be refuted on the basis that, when one says that “no greater God can be conceived”, then one would only be talking about God. The word God is what you call a being that is above all understanding. Secondly, the lack of complete understanding of a God that is greater than any other is the basis of Anselm’s argument. In other words, one needs not understand how it is that no other greater God exists, because it is not possible to do that. It is the concept of understanding that such a being exists that is important.
In general, we don’t know for sure that something as God or any higher power of such has ever lived or existed, but it gives people hope and therefore religious knowledge systems still incorporate and effectively uses suspension of disbelief. Willing suspension of disbelief is still used in religion since this is the only way that mankind believes in something and does not lose hope or faith. The idea of suspension of disbelief is that you don’t use any kind of rationalization to explain the impossible, so what if you could explain religious belief with logic? Can you rationalize faith, although by definition it is not rational? According to John Cottingham, who is an English philosopher, argues there is absolutely nothing to rationalize since religion is “all about one's feeling of absolute dependence and commitment” ("Religious Faith [...]”).
Other people who do not would rather not believe in the existence of God than believe the uncertainty of everything else (Descartes first mediation, page 202). Overall, the Evil Demon argument is that of a sceptical one. It is based on idea which cannot be proven or likened to, yet it is not unthinkable to be
This, he says is more important than knowing the facts about God or performing rituals. This is one reason Kierkegaard supports the knight of infinite resignation over that of faith. The knight of faith is also seen as something comfortable but Kierkegaard doesn’t think we should feel so comfortable. The knight of faith seems to jump into the infinite and come back and seems to have no faith, which Kierkegaard is uneasy with. The knight of faith wants the material world to be the way he wants it and remains focused on the fact that he believes in God but is getting it all back.
While I agree with certain aspects of both theories, I have to dispute both outlooks on the ultimate power of God. John Hick believes that there is no way you can deny the existence of evil, but he believes all evil exists because the all powerful God allows it to. How could a God who is all good allow evil to be present, you ask? Hick’s answer to your question would be; In order to draw us closer to him(GOD). If there were no sorrows, pains, or woes, mankind would not see the need for God’s forgiveness and love.
According to his text, God is simply an illusion that does not exist. It is a human desire to, when overwhelmed by the complexity of the world, to worship something. “Science emancipates us from that desire”, Dawkins
Mavrodes explains that if god is omnipotent, then the stone question is a contradiction in and of itself. His reasoning makes logical sense because if one agrees that god is an all powerful entity, then there is no realm in which god can create something that he cannot lift. As Mavrodes articulates, the crux of the question is its built in attempt to imply that god is not omnipotent. And, if one believes that God is not omnipotent, then it follows that of course god would not be able to lift the stone, or would not be able to create a stone heavy enough to lift thus rendering him non-omnipotent. And, if one believes that god is omnipotent, then this question is irrelevant because this question is a contradiction.
Pascal’s wager states that a person cannot come to know God by reason alone so it is best that a person lives as if God does exist, because a person would not lose anything if God did not exist. Pascal’s wager says it is safer to bet that God does exist and to live a life like God does exist. He also makes the point that even if one does not have faith they could obtain it by ‘faking it’ or acting like they have faith. Pascal’s argument is not convincing to me for this reason alone. There is several times where his wager does not align with scripture.
He knows himself as “subject to an infinitude of errors” (20, Descartes) but then begins to question how it is possible that he makes errors after being the product of a non-deceiving God. After deliberating this thought, Descartes comes to the realization that the errors he makes are due to a lack of something such as intellect that is a result of his lack of perfection and is not a result of something God has attributed to him. With this goes along with the idea that everything God creates, because he is infinite, is perfect and because Descartes is finite there will always be room for error. However, a main attribute God has given him that is the closest attribute of resemblance to God is that of free will. It is the misuse of this free will that leads to error due to the fact that Descartes does not fully understand it; therefore free will “easily falls into error and sin and chooses the evil for the good or the false for the true” (21, Descartes).
Let 's not forget the fact that Jake believes in God and that not all things are acceptable. He dresses differently and tries to stay out of trouble but he gets bullied for it. Everyone has their right to believe in something, whether it 's God, Evil, whether you believe that there is no God and that everything is science is your issue. What Jake believes should not have to annoy you. Now if he comes up to you and make a statement you dont appreciate all it takes is to say "I respect you opinion but I believe otherwise and I don 't feel comfortable discussing this with you" and you add a smile.