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.
Whatever God commands becomes the principle of moral rightness. Therefore, if God told one person to rape someone else, Divine Command Theory implies that the rape would be okay because doing what God commands is doing the right thing. On the contrary, if God forbids rape because it is morally wrong, then it is wrong prior to God ordering it to be wrong. This would imply that actions are morally good or morally bad independent of God’s will. Therefore, we
The great Aristotle declared, “We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly.” Virtue should be defined as perfect or righteous. However, it can be argued that because Ransom is a man, and man is sinful, he could not choose to be virtuous. Because this is the case, and man is inherently sinful as Jesus said in Matthew, “No one is good but One, that is, God” (Mark 10:18), we will adapt Merriam Webster’s definition of virtue, “Conformity to a standard of right, morality. A particular moral excellence” (merriam-webster.com). By this definition we can present our thesis; Ransom chose to be virtuous while on Malacandra.
He believes that not only does eternal law that provide guidance regarding what men should do or avoid if they wish to be happy or good, but it also issues commands and prohibitions of actions that are not legitimate (Strass & Cropsey 1987, p. 186). Revealed Law, according to Augustine, finds its origin in God's revelation through the Bible. He believes that, to resist such law "is to defy God's own ordinance, inasmuch as civil society is intended by God Himself as a remedy for evil and is used by Him as an instrument of mercy in the midst of a sinful world" (Strauss & Cropsey 1987, p. 200). Chapter 13 of Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans starts out with these words: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established"(Romans 13:1, NIV). Augustine often refers to this particular passage in the Bible when talking about Revealed Law.
Antony subjectively defines morality and uses nature as her source. In contrast, I believe God created all things and defines good and evil through His creation and Word. And finally, as followers of God, our motivation for accomplishing good comes from our love for all God has done for us. Imagine a world without order, chaotic without a specific guide to right or wrong–a world without God. Antony considers herself a “moralistic atheist”, possessing similar beliefs to a humanitarian.
This logical incompatibility between evil and God’s actuality can be made evident in two additional principles provided by Mackie. These are if something is omnipotent, it can do anything and if something is omnibenevolent it will eliminate as much evil as possible. Mackie claims God’s omnipotent characteristic is dependent on him being all powerful. If God is omnipotent than the subjection to limitations, such as the inevitability of evil, should not arise. This first premise is in relation to the second and third because if God is all powerful, wholly good and in existence, the product of his work, our world, should be a reflection of his being.
One might argue that if all humans are innately good and if they all have a conscience to account for, the reason of the existence of evil in people cannot be explained. However, those who build such arguments often forget to consider the effects of outside factors on morals. It is reasonable to argue that all actions have a reason, good and evil are not different. Good actions are derived from ‘the seeds’ that everyone inherently possess. (Mencius, 2A.6) Evil actions, however, are merely a result of interactions.
Leibniz keeps that an all things are good, powerful God had made the world and that, consequently, the world necessity be faultless. When human existences observe something as incorrect or evil, it is simply because they do not know the final good that the so known as evil is destined to help. Alike Candide, Pangloss is not a realistic character; to some extent, he is a one-sided, overstated image of a certain substantial of philosopher whose character is close from his philosophy. Pangloss Supporter of optimism. He upholds that the whole thing happens for the best and for adequate
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
Ahuramazda was not opposed, but he was supreme. He believes that right is opposed by the lie, truth is opposed by falsehood and life is opposed by death. According to the textbook, "At the beginning of the world, the good spirit of Ahuramazda was opposed by the evil spirit (50)." They believed that humans played a role in this cosmic struggle between good and evil, and that the God gives them the power to choose between right
The Agents of Good and Evil There is this belief that the Christian God is good and all-powerful. He has the power to create worlds and beings, yet there is still evil in the world. Both Pierre Bayle and Voltaire address these questions in their works “Paulicians” and Candide (respectively). They both believe the Manichean philosophy as a more rational thought process than the contemporaneous Christian view. This belief is that there is not one, but two gods in the world; a god of good and a god of evil.
However, Boethius’s views on God’s knowledge more strongly illustrate this point because they place a greater distinction between God’s knowledge and our will, by placing God outside of the temporal world, changing the conception of foreknowledge. Both theories are successful in accounting for human free will and the excellence of God, blending the two idea to allow human beings to determine their own live within the space provided by the all powerful
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.
This coincides with my next argument in that God has created a world that allows for both good and evil, and along with this, he gave humans the ability to make their own choices. God allows humans, who are not all-powerful and not necessarily wholly good beings to have the decision to make between being good and being evil. I am a firm believer in this hands-off approach that God may have taken during his creation because free will allows people to ultimately choose their own path in life, and while allowing the possibility for evil to occur God himself remains both wholly good and all-powerful. Without free will it would be unclear as to what makes humans unique individuals; free will allows for the understanding that humans can be themselves and choose their outcomes ultimately resulting in them deciding their lives. Unfortunately, free will along with good and evil go hand in hand.