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.
Alive today, Alvin Plantinga is an American analytical philosopher. Alvin Plantinga argues with the topic the problem with evil, referencing John Mackie’s conclusion who argues against the existence of God with Evil and Omnipotence. Plantinga thinks those who believe like Mackie are mistaken in thinking that the existence of evil is contradictory with the existence of God. Plantinga believes that there is no logical unpredictability between the existence of evil and the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, wholly good God. Plantinga describes sets of propositions may or may not be contradictory and/or to be inconsistent.
This method is supportive of Descartes’s will to emphasis on doubt and question anything that can be doubted. Thus, he demonstrates the presence of God through a chain of consequences ‘Causal proof’. Because of the law of conservation of matter, the cause must equal the effect, if we have an idea of God than this idea is the effect and God is the cause (Gaarder, 2003). Therefore, the idea we have of God is an innate idea that we did not produce ourselves. Accordingly, he expresses that as a result of his innate thoughts of God, it only makes sense that it be God who "is the reason for this thought".
For thousands of people, what is holy and what is moral comes from religious texts that act as a guide for individuals for how they ought to live their lives. This idea of holiness and morality for many is deeply rooted in the understanding that it originates with God; it is a necessary condition for it to be binding. However, what if what is holy and moral didn’t originate from God’s goodness, rather it comes from other mediums and is itself good thus being approved by God? This idea of existence and thought is a question that can be outlined in Plato’s, The Euthyphro. In the Euthyphro, Plato sets the stage for what will turn out to be one of the most pondered questions in philosophy.
This philosophical study will define the more rational argument of Thomas Nagel’s atheist perspective on the non-existence of God. In contrast to this view, Swinburne’s “theodicy” defines the “reason” in which God provides free will for human beings to choose between good and evil acts. Therefore, in Swineburne’s point of view, God exists because God allows good and evil to exist in the world, which attempts to validate theism through a perceived rational process under an omnipotent God. However, Nagel proposes that not only should a person not believe in God as an atheist, but that they should seek to argue that God does not exist at all. Nagel defines the inadequacies of religious paradigms, which create unscientific and illogical views that
Augustine, in his work The Perfection of Human Righteousness, combatted the heresy of Pelagianism as described by Caelestius in his treatise, The Definitions Attributed to Caelestius. Following Pelagius, Caelestius by logic and Scripture argued that the Fall did not destroy man’s natural capability to do right. Caelestius argued that God made us free to do the good and thus we all have the power not to sin, and that both the devil and Adam’s original sin are unable to destroy this power. As proof Caelestius gave examples of Old Testament saints who he claimed lived holy lives. Augustine refutes Caelestius’ ideas by using Scripture to show that we are righteous only by the grace of God through Jesus Christ.
First of all, to be clear, the Problem of Evil is an argument that shows that God cannot be either all- powerful, all-knowing, and/or all good. This argument can be set up as following: 1. If God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, there is no evil in this world. 2. Obviously,
Through these predicted measures of gain and lose Pascal proves that choosing to believe is not only the most appealing option but the only rational choice. If you grant this argument as valid, and are consequentially moved to choose to believe in God through reason, you are now meet with the obstacle of convincing yourself to believe. Pascal says that in this case you should not try to convince yourself by trying to further prove God’s existence, but instead you should observe those who have
For me, although the objection is reasonable, I still think the Pascal’s response is stronger. Belief is not decision, because people can not just decided to believe something, they believe in something for a logical and rational reasons. In other words, believe in God by making a decision that people get infinite gains in life is a bet, because this method is not useful to let
Theists argue that there are about six reasons by which morality is enriched y religion, these are: First, if there is a god, good will always win over evil. If some omnipotent divine power is there then the cosmic energy of justice is always there. Moral reason always overrides immoral reason, because of the fear of punishment. If theism is true, then there is an ultimate power which loves us all and cares for us- whose love inspires us all. If there is a god who created us, then all person are of equal worth and there is no class, caste, gender or race.
He then defines the differences between a just law and an unjust law. He points out that a just law is a moral law or a law of God, and that an unjust law is a law that is dissonant with the moral law. Unjust laws do not have there foundations in eternal law nor natural law (par. 16). He states the that any law that brighten ups “human personality” is a just law and any law that devalues human personality is an unjust law.
The consequences endured when making the Christian choice are still full of blessings and uphold the moral absolutes set by God. As a Christian, I cannot entertain the ideas of an Atheistic worldview, especially the philosophy of human life. I am confident in my beliefs and what God has done through Jesus Christ. If given the opportunity to parent a child with Down’s syndrome, I would face this challenge with my faith and support from the body of
Immanuel Kant and Blaise Pascal offer contrasting opinions concerning reason, or man’s ability to come to conclusions on his own. In Metaphysics of Morals, Kant provides an optimistic view of reason, depicting that reason can attain certain conclusions. Pascal argues in Pensees that man is inherently flawed and can’t be certain from reasoning while faith, or belief in the supernatural, is the only thing that can create certainty. Kant’s positive outlook on human reason is a sound assertion, although it doesn’t necessarily create a rupture between faith and reason because despite reason’s capabilities of reaching universal truths, faith compensates for potential mishaps made by reason and provides a more in depth knowledge when combined with reason. Reason is satisfactory in reaching conclusions because reason can identify universal truths.
The argument is as follows: God timelessly knows that I will do C. If god timelessly knows that I will do C,then C is now-necessary. If C is now-necessary, then I cannot perform an action that is not C. Therefore, free will is not possible under an omniscient god. ("Foreknowledge and Free Will.”) Defenders of the Argument from Evil have challenged the last premises of the presented by the critics of Theological Fatalism and have shown that free will is not possible under an omniscient god. Conclusion In conclusion, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good God cannot coexist with evil. Therefore, seeing that evil still exists in this world in terms of natural disaster and human suffering, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good God cannot