John Stuart Mill wrote that we cannot call God good for he is a perfect being and the word ‘good’ is a word that describes the highest form of human morality. I believe this statement to be true in a sense. Good is a term that has a relative meaning when describing things. Good is from a perspective of the individual. In this paper I will be arguing that the word ‘good’ in the phrase “God is good” is in relation to the opinion of the person describing God, and that it cannot be known to our reality if God is objectively good.
This means that God either comes from nothing or something. If God comes from nothing, it would mean that Descartes argument is inconsistent because he claimed to have a clear and distinct idea that something must come from something. Similarly, if God comes from something, then he must come from something that is either more perfect or less perfect. If God comes from a more perfect being, it would mean that God is not completely perfect. On the other hand, if God come from a less perfect being, it would mean that the idea of perfection precedes imperfection does not follow through.
Man, continuously falls short of God’s demand for absolute perfection. So the measurement of man’s perfection based on intelligence, wealth, culture, religious performance or educational prowess is missing the point. The divine standard set by God is that man has fallen short and has missed the mark. Therefore, it would not be prudent to imagine that you have done your best because God will challenge you with the words from Matthew 6:27. Indeed, if we have fallen short and will continue to fall short of God’s glory, then it is our duty to always seek perfection in God’s eyes, no matter how impossible the task.
St. Anselm and Descartes are known for presenting the first ontological arguments on the existence of God. The word ontological is a compound word derived from ‘ont’ which means exists or being and ‘–ology’ which means the study of. Even though Anselm and Descartes’ arguments differ slightly, they both stem from the same reasoning. Unlike the other two arguments on God’s existence (teleological and cosmological), the ontological argument does not seek to use any empirical evidence but rather concentrates on pure reason. The rationale behind this school of thought
He According to him, “every clear and distinct perception is surely something, and hence cannot come from nothing . . . it must necessarily have God for its author” (42). Descartes also offers some doubt into the belief that God exists, for he claims that, “I can attach existence to God, even though no God exists” (44). He raises the idea that his thoughts do not entail existence, however, he claims that existence is inseparable from God because he cannot think of God as anything other than existence. As a result, he concludes that, “the necessity of the thing itself, namely the existence of God, forces me to think this” (44).
The next step that Descartes uses in the second meditation is the existence of this Godly figure. He questions his own beliefs with that of the God, and argues that a mind should be capable of thinking for them to be of existence, “Is there not some God, or some other being by whatever name we call it, which puts these reflections into my mind? That is not necessary, for is it not possible that I am capable of producing them myself?” He then puts forward that for one to be deceived by this “evil demon” as he describes it, they have to exist to be deceived.
Faustus knows what the scripture says, but he abandons the meaning of it and takes it out of context. The “gift of God” that he leaves out and avoids is the truth that could save him from damnation, but we see Faustus give in to those fleshly desires instead of clinging to Christian values and Christ’s promise. Because his pride and ego push these values aside, we see that Faustus is striving for more than what he feels his doctorate can give
The only way to stop the curse is by changing his beliefs and not going through with killing his sons wife. This is hard for Creon to listed to due to his stubborn and self centered personality. Teiresias is a old prophet who is blind and respected. The prophet comes out saying “All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong…. the only crime is pride” ( Teiresias 232).
The validity of Descartes’ model of knowledge is further questioned when Descartes seem to use God’s existence to escape this flaw in logic. Descartes wants to prove that God exist by claiming it as a clear and distinct perception. However, in order to proof that he has to rely on his clear and distinct perception which is confirmed by God. The proof is known as the "Cartesian Circle. " By claiming both that our clear and distinct perceptions are true if God exist and that we know that God exist as we can clearly and distinctly perceive the idea of God.
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. The definition of omnipotent is
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.
Be that as it may, the scholar can, in the event that he wishes, acknowledge this feedback. He can concede that no discerning confirmation of God 's presence is conceivable. Also, he can in any case hold all that is key to his position, by holding that God 's presence is known in some other, non-judicious way. I think, notwithstanding, that an all the more telling feedback can be made by method for the convention issue of shrewdness. Here it can be appeared, not that religious convictions need discerning backing, but rather that they are emphatically unreasonable, that the few sections of the crucial philosophical convention are conflicting with each other, so that the scholar can keep up his position in general just by a significantly more amazing dismissal of reason than in the previous case.
From this it is then reasonable to conclude that this causality was set in motion by a supreme being which is God. This argument answers the question of whether or not there is a God far better than the intelligent design arguments of William Paley. For, Paley’s argument easily invalidated by modern science because it argues that simply because there are complex features that can’t be explained by nature and that there are further complex forms in the universe then there must be a God who created the
Why would such a loving God permit such evil? : This is the question that has been haunting philosophers and theologians for centuries. It seemingly does not make sense for an all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful God to permit the evils that exist in this world. While many arguments are insufficient in explaining God’s permittance of evil, certain beliefs from those arguments may be combined to create a clearer explanation for this seemingly illogical notion. Cleaerly, God must have created evil for a specific purpose.