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.
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.
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
He also concludes that theistic arguments are redundant to understanding God because God would not put the obstacle of difficult thinking between people and Himself. 2. How does Hume use testimony to argue against miracles? David Hume argues that there has never been the kind of testimony on behalf of miracles which would amount to complete proof. He offers four reasons for this claim.
The third point, step, or fact to accept is that if God exists only in the human mind, then God is not the greatest possible being (McGrath & OverDrive, Inc. 2001 p. 180). This is because a being who exists only as a mental notion is not so great as a being who exists in reality. Based on these facts and steps, Anselm conclude that Good must exist in reality, as well as an idea in the mind. To vividly understand the argument, it is important to understand the
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.
The most influential version of the moral argument for belief in God can be traced to Kant (1788 ), who famously argued that the theoretical arguments for God 's existence were unsuccessful, but presented a rational argument for belief in God as a “postulate of practical reason.” Kant held that a rational, moral being must necessarily will “the highest good,” which consists of a world in which people are both morally good and happy, and in which moral virtue is the condition for happiness. The latter condition implies that this end must be sought solely by moral action. However, Kant held that a person cannot rationally will such an end without believing that moral actions can successfully achieve such an end, and this requires a belief that the causal structure of nature is conducive to the achievement of this end by moral means. This is equivalent to belief in God, a moral being who is ultimately responsible for the character of the natural world. Kant 's arguments will be discussed later in
In Chapter 43 of Second Isaiah, the prophet argues that “even when proper sacrifices have been offered, they have not been satisfying because of other iniquities” (Ackerman 1016). The people of Israel believe that if they do everything they can to make sure that their sacrifices are worthy and appropriate, God will accept them. However, Isaiah points out that the behavior and actions beneath the sacrifice will not be ignored. Similarly, in Chapter 58 of Third Isaiah, the Lord speaks to the prophet and seeks to define what is considered false and true worship. According to the book of Third Isaiah, “The Lord rejects fasting that is accompanied by oppression (v.3) and strife (v.4).” (Ackerman 1037).
Dr David L. Perry is criticizing arguments that go against genetic engineering. Perry argues that while theologians claim that genetic engineering is condemned as “violating the dignity of human life”, parents who desire healthy children is not a violation of human dignity, but rather acceptable and even praiseworthy (Can we Play God?,
Similarly, it would also be absurd to say that pretending to believe would cause someone, who previously could not convince themselves to believe, to believe. Therefore, simply choosing to believe in God could not possible lead one to truly believe in God. So, an individual who cites Pascal’s Wager to justify a belief in God does not truly believe in God, and if they do not truly believe in God, they will not stand to gain infinitely if God does exist. This completely removes the only reasonable option from Pascal’s
Jones. Only foundation for atheist for not having faith in Gods is that they believe there is a deficiency of faithful indication, Atheists debate if God is present then why evil subsists? Why hurt or loss? Why suffering? Mackie point is if Holy Being subsists as well as is a presence that is completely good, all-powerful, all-knowing, then there shouldn’t be reality of evil, and theists would not discard that Holy Being is completely good, omnipotent, and omniscient and along with that they believe in the existence of some evil.
I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist. At the beginning of the article, Mackie states that the initial issue with God’s existence is that, “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, Paragraph 3). If god is such a pure and good being, then he should be able to combat all evil. The first statement that showcases that God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, then evil cannot possibly exist.
Why the Problem of Evil Suggests There is No God The typical definition of God is an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good being. A perfectly good God is expected to protect His creations from evil and/or stop any form of it from happening, but that is not the case in our world. People are responsible for so much pain and suffering today that the problem of evil as John Hick explained is the most believable explanation as to why I do not think there is a God. Hick states that God is universally described as omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. These three facts should make the world seem like paradise, but that is obviously not the case.
John Hick uses that definition. The monotheistic definition of God is that God is all-good and all-powerful. If God is those things, then He would not want evil and He could actually prevent it. Which, leads to believe that there should be no evil if God is those
This belief is that there is not one, but two gods in the world; a god of good and a god of evil. I myself believe in a world of balance and like the two authors listed above, accept this as more rational thought than a single omnipotent god. My reasoning is that without evil, there is no concept of good, and vice versa. I will briefly