Ultimately, Driver seems to believe in all the premises of the defined Divine Command Theory. She portrays her opinion in a way that accepts claims such as how within religion, God has the ability to determine what is right and what is wrong. However, she brings to light the inconsistencies and gaps of this theory. She says that there may be reason to believe that there are outside influences of why God thinks certain things are right. She also states that God cannot make something right, such as killing a person or torturing kittens, but he does have the ability to give reason as to why other aspects of morality may be accepted.
The Cartesian Circle is an objection to Descartes’ proof of God’s existence as it begs the question. In his proof, Descartes starts off with his two premises, his idea of God and the principle, which states that the cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality, which leads to a conclusion that God exists. Descartes’ conclusion then adds on to say that God is not a deceiver that will then follow to develop the General Rule, which states that if we have a clear and distinct perception of something, we would be certain of it. According to critics, Descartes is able to use the principle as his premise because Descartes relies on the General Rule in order to be certain of it. Using the two premises,
It is contradictory. It does not actually say that God exists, but that we can call the unknown cause of everything god. The word god can be the name for some energy that caused the Big Bang. The final argument is the ontological argument.
God allows us to endure suffering and evil in order to shape our character and better prepare us for our entry into Heaven. Some people argue that unnecessary evil proves that God does not exist, however I believe that everything happens for a reason so that there can be no unnecessary evil. While I may not understand and be furious of about any evil or suffering that comes into my life, I hope that my faith continues to be strong enough to recognize that the suffering will cease and a reason for the suffering will be revealed in due time. We are to assume that we will not always recognize the reason God has for allowing evil and suffering, because we are too emotionally and spiritually immature to recognize God 's motives for permitting evil. I assume that the lesson for us to learn is that God has created a
We asked about how disrupting the being and becoming distinction translates theologically. How would this effect the distinction between creator and creature? Further, the valuation of materiality and connectedness seems to have implications for the doctrine of God. One of us wondered: “to what extent are we repeating the history of Trinitarian thought?” Another raised suspicion: “does this commit you to Whiteheadian doctrine of God becoming in the world?”
From these questions, Hume comes to a conclusion that God is indifferent about His creations and allows evil to just happen in the world that he created. The only support the Wager has is the support of Christian belief. There is no evidence that is brought into the claim other than just making the claim if God is real and you do not believe, you will suffer in hell for all of eternity. Where Hume provides evidence by showing how to prevent evil is in our
He argues that we as Christians cannot found our entire Atonement Theology on these metaphors, as their descriptive capabilities can only go so far before they break down. He then offers an alternative to the “Penal Substitution” doctrine so popularized by the literal interpretation of these aforementioned
Since nothing that is conceivably existent involves a contradiction (impossible to believe in something that has a contradiction), and since everything conceivably existent can be equally conceived as non-existent, there is no contradiction in denying its existence (leaving both existence and non-existence possible). Putting this into the context of arguing that God’s existence is not demonstrable, Cleanthes states that: everything we can conceive to exist, we can also conceive not to exist. Either one of these options is possible (not
Pascal makes the argument for the belief in God through the use of Decision Theory. He states that there are two options of belief and two possible realities, creating the four combinations: you believe in God and God exists, you believe in God and God doesn’t exist, you don’t believe in God and God exists, and you don’t believe in God and God doesn’t exist. Next Pascal assigns predicted measures of gain or lose for each combination, as if it is proven true. Here he reasons that If a person truly believed in God and God does exist, they will be rewarded infinitely, furthermore he says that if they believe and God doesn’t exist they lose nothing On the Other hand he says that a person doesn 't believe in God and God exists they stand to lose, and if they don’t believe and God doesn’t exist they neither lose nor gain. Through these predicted measures of gain and lose Pascal proves that choosing to believe is not only the most appealing option but the only rational choice.
He thought that a thing in nature either exists or does not exist. If it is possible for something to not exist, he said, then it did not exist at some point in the past. Aquinas then claimed that it is impossible to follow an infinite chain of creation of existence, as the origin must eventually be reached. Therefore, at some time there was only one existing thing – the cause of existence for all other existing things. Without an original first existence, he argued, nothing could ever
Thusly, the principle of middle knowledge permits one to attest an extremely solid perspective of divine sovereignty in which nothing happens separated from God 's will or consent, and a libertarian perspective of human freedom in which individuals can do other than what they really do. To clarify on these statements I will be using a hypothetical situation to further my beliefs and standings. If God were to place John in Pilates position he (John) would choose to release Jesus by his own free actions, but God knows that this would go against his preordained plan. He chose to have made Pilate so his plans would go accordingly. Had God known that Pilate would choose to release Jesus He could have chosen not to create him.
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.
He argues myth takes place in the individual’s own reading and interpretation of the passage. Myth’s value lies within the conveyance of how to experience God and His actions within a sacred and empirical dimension. Myth is a synonym for the real while not being verifiable. Furthermore, individual ideas, needs, and experiences are not needed in order to validate the empirical.
The cosmological argument looks to the world to prove God’s existence rather than pure definitions. The proponent of the cosmological argument was St. Thomas Aquinas, a theologian in the eleventh century CE (Solomon). He proposed that everything that exists must have a cause, and that the cause was God (Aquinas). Aquinas’ first point was based off of motion, that nothing can be both the mover and moved. An item sitting in place has the potential to be moving, but cannot move unless something that is already moving imparts motion to it
This was just one of the main critiques of this argument. Along with the past two arguments, there is another argument that deals with God’s