In order to be morally perfect both good and evil must exist outside of God so that he can choose it. The only way for a being to be morally perfect is for an evil to exist that is not chosen. If God destroys all evil, moral perfection becomes impossible because the choice not to do evil will no longer exist. If God is omnipotent, omniscient , and morally perfect he is constrained not to destroy all evil by his own definition of existence. The property or constraint of being morally perfect is as important as omnipotence.
God faring people accept the teachings of God and the best way to live. Euthyphro dilemma was “Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right” (Rachel’s and 50-53)? The problem with this dilemma is that God is always right and what isn’t right is wrong according to God. Which makes Euthyphro confused because he isn’t sure anymore what is right and what is wrong. The concept of morality is mysterious is saying that just because god says its right to slap a child doesn’t really make it right.
Recognising this reaffirms that God is more than we can ever imagine – he is ineffable, can never be described so we cannot say what they are not. Strengths of via negativa are that it allows things to be said about God without implying that the finite (humans) can grasp the infinite (God), it also asserts the claims of revelation, that God is good and then recognises goodness to be a human word and so must be negated by saying too that God is not good to
But also Absolutism does not take other situation into consideration, things change and people change, so should the rules change as well? Personally, I think that they need to be amended; this could cause even worse conflicts than they are in this day and age, although it might be necessary, Common sense isn’t that common. An example of the Absolute theory is the Divine law theory; this is all stated in the bible, it dictates what’s good and what’s bad, according to the will of God. Everything we do, has the question behind it: Does it follow the will of God? This is the question absolutes ask before making any decisions.
Cameron Farrell God’s Involvement in the Creation of Right and Wrong The argument pertaining to God’s involvement in the existence of right and wrong is very complex, as one can gather from analyzing the text. The general idea the author is trying to convey to the reader is that it is difficult to say that God is good while also saying he created right and wrong, and specified the differences between the two. The writer is not trying to argue against the differences between right and wrong, but more so the situation that exists within the difference between the two. The situation at hand is if the differences of right and wrong were God’s decision to create, or not. If God did create the difference between right and wrong then that means that for God, initially, there wasn’t a difference between to two.
Second, he asks the following question, if God created evil and goodness, why can he simply make evil disappear? In a conclusion taken from the Euthyphro dilemma, this question demonstrates a limitation in God’s power, which is indicating a mayor flaw in the Divine Command Theory. Because the Divine Command Theory is based on faith, Mortimer, the main proponent of this theory, could find difficult to respond to John Arthur’s arguments. In other words, faith does not have a scientific explanation which makes it hard to be understood by some individuals. But one of Mortimer’s strongest arguments could be that the DCT is the only theory that explains and distinguishes between right and wrong in a simple and clear
There are situations in which God would have to compromise in terms of his attributes in order to be all-knowing. The first difficulty is that there are some things that are impossible for God to do. For example, Can God know lust? As we know, God is, and has to be morally perfect and morally right. If God breaks this, then he is not being omnibenevolent (all good), which is another of his attributes.
He also has some strong opinion on the solutions that the theists have on the resolution to the problem of evil. He states that "If we use the cosmological argument at all, all we are entitled to infer is the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe, and this does not entitle us to postulate an all powerful, all perfect, uncaused cause." He also states that theists come up with what he believes is "unintelligent" instances of how we find reasons to believe in God and how he can exist in a world that has evil involved in people's lives. These instances of how evil can exist while GOd can to at the same time include, being punishment for people's wrongs or the consequence of having free will. But here I would like to put in my own opinion much like McCloskey has throughout his article.
Does Morality Require a God? The view that god or a supreme being is needed in morality has been a common debate throughout history. In this essay, I will argue that morality does need a god or Supreme Being. I will discuss the Divine Command Theory, the objectiveness morality has and the special authority resulting in rewards and punishments confirming the need to have a god to command morality. The Euthyphro dilemma poses criticisms to which I will clarify from a gods command perspective that acts are only good because a perfect and all-knowing god commands it.
On one hand you have the philosophers who believe you can speak and write about God, because God is reality. On the other hand, are the Logical Positivists who claim that statements about God have no meaning because they don’t relate to anything that is real. There are a number of philosophers who claimed to have proven conclusively that religious language is meaningful, for example Aquinas’ theory of analogy. An analogy is an attempt to explain the meaning of something which is difficult to understand and forming relations through attributes or relations that are similar. Aquinas rejected univocal and equivocal language when talking about God.