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,
This argument says that everything must have a cause, but in the end says that God has no cause. 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.
I trust God has a greater plan for us in which he permits evil to exist. 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.
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?” A more general refection provoked was how we think about the relationship between Christianity and Platonism. Is there a necessary relationship?
This means that God would not be all knowing and not omniscient. 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
Cleanthes’s argues that for something to be demonstrable, it’s opposite must be impossible due to a contradiction. 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.
Aquinas claimed that God exists because of the causal nature of possibility and necessity. 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.