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. It should entail a world with no evil, instead heavily endorsed with goodness. Mackie identifies this when he states “Good is opposed to evil, in such a way that a good thing always eliminates evil as far
Divine command theory has many weaknesses. The weaknesses of this theory are best shown by Plato’s dialogue, Euthyphro, which poses a question. Are actions morally good because they are approved by God or the gods, or whether God or the gods approve of action because they are morally good? If someone believes that morally good acts are good because they are willed by God, then God could command us to do anything, and it would be right for us to do it. Whatever God commands becomes the principle of moral rightness.
However, I cannot completely agree with either point of view concerning God’s power. According to Hick’s theory God is, was, and always will be all powerful, but the Process-Relational Theory suggests that God though a very powerful being, He is not all powerful. Both suggest that evil exists either because of God’s awesome power or due to the lack of that power. As a Christian it is easy to agree with John Hick’s arguments that God is all knowing and all good but can the belief that God is all powerful hold its own in a world full of evil. If he is all good why would he not use his bounty of power to rid the world of evil?
The Ontological Argument is defined as the argument that God, being described as the most great or perfect, must exist, since a God who exists is greater than a God who does not (Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100250688). It belongs to the Philosophy of Religions and not Theology; there is a difference between Philosophy of Religion and Theology, even though they both take God and religion as their subject. Theology starts with assuming that God exists and aids in figuring out what follows or it sometimes solves philosophical problems that might arise from the belief in God. Theology is slightly more strict and they have limits to their premises, one of those limits is not believing in God. Another
Looking specifically at Abrahamic religions, God is considered to be greater than anything that can be imagined, and is supremely perfect. This Ultimate Reality cannot simply exist in thought or idea because existence in reality is greater. If God only exists in human understanding, there leaves a possibility that something greater can be conceived. In this sense, there is an implied
Also, only human beings can change themselves freely, whereas all other changes in nature are the result of some outside force. Mankind are the most powerful beings created from God, which is why they are the most dignified creatures. Also, Pico states that as a humanist he believes that knowledge should be through the senses, such as sight, hearing, touching, taste, and smelling; which is something only humans can truly use to learn and create with. In the “Oration on the Dignity of Man”, Pico states that “There is nothing to be seen more wonderful than man”, which truly illustrates his beliefs on mankind and the abilities we
This contradicts the assumption that God is the creator of all norms. (Based on Darwall 's Philosphical Ethics p. 42-44). 2) God created us, therefore we must follow his commands out of gratitude. Again, we face the problem that there appears to be a norm that exists independently from his command: that you should show gratitude, which seems inconsistent. (Darwall 's Philosophical Ethics p. 44).
Focusing on the existence of God, two of the three major proofs for his existence lack significant conviction. For example, St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument, while logical and deductive, can be off-putting due to its complicated and round-about nature.
Descartes talks about God as if God is infinite because he radiates out in every direction. Descartes imagines that he himself is perfect and has the perfect qualities of God. This leads him to the discussion of disobeying God and turning into what one wants rather than what God wants. By doing what oneself wills, not what God wills, one is basically implying the he or she sees him or herself as God-like. Descartes believes he is partially God because he is on his way to infinite knowledge, but since he is gaining little by little, he is in a state of potentiality.
Why is it possible to know anything at all? How do people know what is right or wrong? What is the meaning of human history? The first question, ‘what is a prime reality?’ request if there is God or not, what is God like, if he exists and if not, seeks to get the answer to the origin of material existence. My view on this is that I am a believer in God as the source and creator of every substance that exists.
Omniscience is the ability to be all-knowing, which entails that God knows everything that has, is, and will ever occur. Omnipotence is characterized by the ability to be all-powerful, which gives God the authority to change the world in any way He desires. Lastly, omnibenevolence is illustrated through moral perfection and requires that God has no moral flaws and every moral virtue. Additionally, Anselm also believes that if God were to exist, His perfection would entail three things about the nature of His existence: that it be unlimited, independent and eternal. In order to be unlimited, nothing could have prevented Him from existing.