Philo concludes that for those who already believe in an omnipotent and all-good god, these four causes are not enough to invalidate their beliefs. INSERT CITATION He says this because all four of his causes can be dispelled under the assumption that there is some divine explanation that reconciles god’s goodness with the evil in the world. However, coming from an unbiased perspective, Philo says that we certainly cannot infer the existence of a benevolent god when these causes of natural evil are taken into account. In fact, if we do attempt to divulge god’s moral attributes from the state of the universe, then Philo concludes that the only proper deduction we can draw is that god is neither good nor is he evil, but rather he is entirely indifferent to the principles of morality altogether – in essence, god is morally neutral. INSERT
The concept of inclusivity for a christ-centered theist is, unsupported because God wont take nonbelievers into heaven. Christ-centered theists believe the law of non contradiction is true because, God wont let there be two things true at the same time. This one is rational because morality is based on something and not subjective.
A proposition that is A priori is based on reasoning or knowledge that follows from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience. A strong argument that Descartes describes but rejects is the GOD Example where he states that GOD would have the omnipotence required to deceive us, even in rational thought. But, although he says that GOD could deceive us, that GOD wouldn’t because of he/she/it out not to. GOD is essentially perfectly good, therefore never does anything ought not to do. (Descartes “GOD = Good”).
Peter van Inwagen argument entitled “Free Will Defense,” is a theodicy because it attempts to show why God would allow evil in the world as opposed to a defense which would try to explain, logically, how evil could exist in the world with an all-loving an all-powerful God. Peter van Inwagen purposed that, yes, God is all-loving and all-powerful, and because he is all-loving, he allows for humans to make their own decisions even if these decisions lead to evil and pain. I find this to be an extremely satisfying response. It is very plausible that an all-powerful being could and would, in some way, relinquish control as a way to show and practice his love. Autonomy is good, granting free will results in autonomy, therefore granting free will
This is because God moves things according to nature and it is the nature of humans to have free will. Aquinas emphasis if a human does an evil action, it is the action the person alone and not the God. In other words, evil is through an individual’s action and should be blamed on the individual instead of God. Aquinas’s sixth major theme is humans have sinned because humans do possess free will. This sinning will break the human’s relationship with God.
This means that even thought descartes can not see God he still believe in him, and anything that have anything evil like actions who knows it did not come from God. So in the end Descartes arguments may appear convincing but with the propers resources and plenty of research this leaves Descartes problem of error
How can you best describe the so-called problem of evil? The problem with evil is an argument that is meant to prove that God does not exist or it is more likely than not that God does not exist. Ernest Nagel believes that one of the most important characteristics of atheists is the belief that, “there are no good reason to believe that god exists” (Velasquez, 2014p.260) based on the existence of evil in the world. David Hume’s argument on the problem with evil is that man can only know what he has experienced so if we take the idea of such a god out of our minds and then were forced to look at our world we would never have reason to believe that a, “supreme, intelligence, benevolent, powerful god exists”. Hume’s expresses this argument in two different ways one is a deductive argument called the, “logical problem with evil which shows that god necessarily does not exist” (Velasquez, 2014p.262).
Furthermore, when observing the nature of the will, it is seemingly less contradictory to having one that is truly free than the church supported position of Augustine. When we look at Augustine’s theory, it is not difficult to wonder exactly how our will is free; for if we are incapable of performing anything that is inherently good on our own, then either the act of allowing God to come into our hearts and change them so that we can act according to his will is not good (a position no Christian would claim to be true), or the act of allowing God to convert our hearts is not something we have any control over; if the conversion is forced, then our wills are not truly free, and the we have lost one of the primary aspects of what separates humans from the rest of creation (the other part being in the image and likeness of God). However, since the teachings of the church must be in accordance with the catechism and the bible, then Augustine’s perspective does not depose us of having free will, and we turn to Anselm for further clarification as to how this is
In addition to distinguishing his system and criticizing the "total Spinozism", Wolff's system is more than capable of avoiding the accusations of "partial Spinozism". Wolff is allowed to posit contingency by allowing for the sufficient reason of the universe to the be the free will of God.27 Since God exists outside of the world, what happens in the world does not occur out of a fatal necessity, as it is was always possible for something to happen otherwise. The freedom that Lange supposes is not necessary to defend against universal fatalism, and therefore Wolff's account does not lead to fatalism, immoralism and atheism. This is especially the case when Wolff's account demands that God is outside the world and the world is not infinite. Wolff is capable of avoiding Lange's accusation of partial