Hume (textbook, p. 305) develops, in detail, what is presumably the most grounded contention against the presence of God in a valid deductive argument. He states, “Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent.
Furthermore, defenders of the divine command theory like Alston have faced the Euthyphro dilemma by says that although God’s commands make right actions right, God is morally perfect and hence would never issue unjust or immoral commandments. On their eyes, God’s nature is the standard of moral goodness, and God’s commands or words are the origin of all obligation and kindness. (Jeremy Koons, n.d.) One well-known objection to divine will/divine command moral theories is that they commit us to the view that God’s will is arbitrary, and the arbitrary will of God is not a plausible basis for morality. (Thomas,
What is sin? ” is addressed (5). Euthyphro’s dilemma is explained by Panos Dimas in his article when he says that if something is “loved by the gods….Socrates characterizes it as something that happens to it and therefore presupposes that the pious has already been constituted” (2). What this means is that we cannot be sure of what is good or bad because we do not know the real essence of what piety is. The basic question of the dilemma is: are morals considered ethical because the gods says so or do the gods say morals are ethical because they actually are?
The divine command theory means that what is morally right is judged and decided by the gods. Socrates questions Euthyphro’s belief in pleasing the gods to be “pious” by stating, “They have differences of opinion, as you say, about good and evil, just and unjust, honourable and dishonourable: there would have been no quarrels among them, if there had been no such differences – would there now?” (119). Even though Euthyphro answers that “pious” must mean that it is pleasing to all gods, it is obvious that actions will mean different things to different gods. The gods then are different from the God now, and without a constant definition of “God”, Euthyphro’s definition of “piety” would not be the same in different cultures and not be a universal answer that applies to all. In the society in which Socrates lives in, the people’s moral values and thinking is dominated by the predisposition of the existence of the Greek gods.
With regards to the cosmological argument I am of the belief that Article Three of Question Two entitled “Whether God exists?” best summaries Aquinas’ opinions. Aquinas first outlines two objections of those who argue that God does not exist may raise. The first objection outlines that if God is an “infinite goodness” then there would be no evil, however evil is present in the world so God does not exist. I agree that this is a fair criticism because God is hailed as omnipotent and omnipresent, yet evil often prevails in the world. Despite this I feel the fact that Aquinas acknowledges this objection strengthens his later argument when he outlines “The Five Ways.” The second objection outlines there is no need to believe in a God because “the world can be accounted for by other principles.” The objection raises that everything can be explained by two basic principles,
Divine command theory stems from two main assumptions: The first is that God exists and that God commands us to do, or refrain from doing, certain things, and the second is that we should do what God commands us to do. My thesis claims that the divine command theory 's inability to show why we should follow these commands renders the theory too detached from reality to be taken as a serious explanation for why we feel like we ought to do particular things in a particular way for particular reasons, or objective purport. The strength of divine command theory comes from its ability to cover some of the holes that ethical naturalism can 't seem to, by restricting norms to the desire of a single perfect entity, divine command theory is able to account for the seeming contradictions in human desires and what seems to be classified as good. However, a claim of such magnitude has repercussions of similar magnitude, repercussions that, as I will now go on to argue, weaken the theory.
However, my stance in all of this is that it’s important to have some pinch of faith. To have faith doesn’t specifically mean to believe in God but rather a superior being – something that one can go to for help and guidance. For one to be so certain that God, or a superior being, is only but an illusion, makes no sense – just like miracles. In which cannot be compared to simple and consecutive “coincidences,” but something only God can make
Ultimately for Kierkegaard, demonstrating the insufficiency of rational proofs is precisely what is necessary to establish true faith in God. In his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding Hume laments that “Philosophical arguments proving the existence of
—God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. —That which can be conceived not to exist is not God." One can see why God can be considered to seem inconceivable, but some may agree if one knows God that God is conceivable. In suggestion, Sin is one reason God sent Jesus to live on this earth, so we can see with our own eyes that there is a God, but at the same time, there will be those who still choose not to believe in God's existence. The weakness of Anselm argument is, he says he believes in God and seeks God at the same time Anselm thinks that it is hard to seek God when he cannot see God.
Free-will is arguably the greater good; we would not be humans without it and we would not be a good creation without choice over our own actions. In protection of that greater good, God does not, and should not, get involved in dealing with moral evil and the suffering caused by it. Doing so would subvert our free-will, and ultimately take away our free-will. Since we have the choice whether to do good or evil, God should not be blamed for the actions that humans make. Following from this, God can still be omniscient (God knows that there is evil in the world), omnipotent (God has the ability to stop evil) and omnibenevolent (God does not want evil to exist, but ultimately allows it for our ability to have free-will).