He argues that man first arrives at the question of God’s existence when his Reason “inspired by its paradoxical passion”, the force that drives man’s questioning, runs to the limits of what it can understand— Reason attempts to grapple with the Unknown (also sounds like Kant). Kierkegaard terms this Unknown “the God”, and begins to unpack explore whether any sort of proof with respect to the God are possible. He asserts from the outset that he cannot try to prove the existence of the Unknown, as his proof would hold existence as a presupposition and fail to be more than a tautology. {check that! }He also cannot argue that the existing Unknown concept is the God because this too is not a proof rather simply a development of the
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,
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).
Consequently, this argument cannot possibly tell us about God’s moral nature. So, the argument for empirical theism cannot possibly work and thus, have a weakness. Nagel lays out proofs and arguments based on the relationship between God and evil, but he finds the flaws and concludes that not one argument is powerful enough to convince everyone to accept it. So, he is left with the disbelief it is conceivable to accommodate omnipotence and omnibenevolence of God with the unvarnished facts of human existence. Swinburne retaliates Nagel’s assertion that the problem of evil could not be resolved.
Blackburn claims that Pascals argument is set-up in a way that presumes something about god, but Blackburn does not consider the fact that Pascal sets his argument up on faith and belief, not presumption. Pascals Wager, an argument not about the whether the existence of God is valid, but rather the rationality of it. Blaise Pascal, compares the belief in God to the metaphorical equivalent of a gamble, or a wager. Arguing that God poses an infinite power, Pascal describes how "He is infinitely incomprehensible"(Pascal's 4) mentioning how "He has no Affinity to us". (Pascal's 4).
This part of the argument I would agree with the most, as when you try to prove that something indescribable exists you will fail as it cannot be described and instead are required to have faith. Let me explain what I mean: The whole purpose of these arguments is to prove that an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God exists, and according to the Judeo-Christian belief this God is also indescribable. Something that cannot be described cannot be fully proven to exists; therefore, in order to believe that God exists it will take a ‘leap of faith.’ The greatest strength of this argument is also its greatest weakness, as this leap of faith cannot without a shadow of a doubt prove that God
Devine command theory The theory, Devine command theory, also known as theological voluntarism is philosophical perspective and view to what Gods will is relevant to determine moral status of some set of entities. The theory holds that morality is Gods command, doing what is morally right is implementing Gods command. In this writing, I aim at giving a characterization of the theory, argue for the theory and against the theory, I will present my own views, arguing for and against the philosopher 's arguments, I 'll evaluate the theory, point out objections to the theory and present approach to respond to the objection. Metaethical and Normative Theological Voluntarism Defined as voluntarism. All human beings believe in the existence of Supreme Being.
If civil law is a type of moral law, and justice is a moral virtue, then it is impossible to execute justice in civil affairs without reference to moral law. Without morality, law does not exist because it does not contain real justice. Real justice is following natural and moral law in how a person punishes and acts. Natural law is instilled into the hearts of men by God and provides a means of deciphering right from wrong. It can be “discovered by reason alone and applies to all people, while divine law can be discovered only through God 's special revelation and applies only to those to whom it is revealed and who God specifically indicates are to be bound.”12 Though one may not believe in divine or moral law, natural law can still be used to determine justice from injustice.
Her approach to the problem of suffering based on her account of second person experience and the narratives required to communicate second-person experience. Accordingly, she does not speak suffering in the sense of an intellectual problem but it is more in the meaning of human personal relation of love with God and others. Her drawing of suffering as a problem of interpersonal relation could be understood in term of second-person experience and biblical narratives. The main question within her works throughout comes from the logical proposition: if God who is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good exist, so there is no morally sufficient reason for suffering in the world . Stump, however, does not focus firstly on this logical notion.
In this respect, morality and Socratism are the expressions of a vital drive analogous to those which give birth to the figures of Apollo and Dionysus, as they are both connected to the metaphysical inquiry into the nature of things. Still, the Socratic worldview fails in seeing its dependency and connections to these drives, and thus fails to see its connection to life and its irrational kernel . According to Nietzsche, this mindset is the result of a pathology, as it gives too much merit to appearances while it excludes the Will from its view, making the former absolute and arranging them in a rational but insincere way. Socratism is then made of the same substance of the drives which inspire tragedy insofar as it is an expression of life, but, in both a literal and a metaphysical sense, it is the result of a sick form of this substance – it presents a metaphysical view of reality, just like art, but at the same time causes life to retreat within the safe walls of reasonableness, as by contrast art pushes the person to transcend them . In some respect, we can see here one of the seeds of Nietzsche’s later intuitions, and I believe there is no harm in employing them to elucidate this point.