His first form of the argument runs as follows: (P1) God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived (P2) If God exists in the mind alone (in intellect) then a greater being can be conceived (in re) (P3) God to be the greatest being, has to existing the mind and in reality, otherwise another being would be greater than God. (C) Therefore God must exist both in the mind and in reality. This method of reasoning aims to demonstrate the truth of something by reducing to absurdity the very opposite of what you are trying to prove. In Anselm’s case this would be that God does not exist, which he claims is absurd by means of an argument which he claims is logically necessary. For Anselm, God cannot not exist.
With god/s grounding the moral the foundation of the moral becomes arbitrary because it would only be good because god says its so. Also calling god good would not make any sense since he decided what good is or isn't, so how could he be good unless the moral was grounding him? If piety was a certain care of the god’s we could look to do always what is Pious and in return we would be worshiping/caring for the god/s if they exists. If the God’s are looking to something the “moral,piety” then if you act pious in your actions through life you will be in a way worshiping the god’s, because you are honoring what they already honer. The problem with this idea is when people think god grounds the moral
The divine command theory suggests that an act is right if it has ben commanded by God, and morally wrong if God has forbidden it. God has absolute authority and decides alone what is right or wrong, and human reason has no contribution to the decision. He is the most reliable source of guidance for humans and provides them with laws that they should live by. Humans just have to accept these laws and respond to God’s commands. According to Emil Brunner, the divine command theory means that by doing what God wills or commands
The word “good” in reference to God is meaningless as we cannot know what this entails; it is completely different from saying “the man is good”. According to the Via Negativa, to say “God is good” limits God’s goodness because it puts a human idea of goodness in our minds. Similarly if we talk about God being all-knowing, we can debate what this means but ultimately we cannot know for certain what it means to be all-knowing. The only things we can be certain of about God is what God is not; for example God is not evil. There are strengths to this theory, for instance it prevents us from making anthropomorphic statements about God, meaning we are not left with an inadequate image of God.
Descartes wonders if God deceives him or not. Which God cannot do because he is the Ultimate and would not do that to something he created. Descartes states “the desire to deceive without doubt testifies to malice or feebleness, and accordingly cannot be found in God” (73). So God does have power and some people believe that a man of power will use his power to deceive, but the fact that something wants to deceive and show God to be a coward. God cannot be a coward because he is the Supreme.
Secular humanist feel that religion is really a negative thing because it gives you rules to follow therefore you never really follow your deepest desires. The one thing Christians and secular humanist have in common is that they both look for the good in everyone that no one is truly bad. Atheistic Existentialism is very different from Christianity in almost every way. Christian feels that we as humans have purpose and are on this Earth to follow whatever path God has for us. However, Atheistic Existentialism sees humans and even themselves as nothing but matter and to me it is completely sad that they have no faith or feeling of value.
Joseph Fletcher a theologian, who first articulated situation ethics through the bases of absolute love, agape. He believed that there are no universal moral rules because each case and situation is unique and therefore deserves a unique solution or approach. His ethical theory was based on the six fundamental principles; the first principle is that ‘love only is always good’ which is the belief that “Only one ‘thing’ is intrinsically good; namely, love: nothing else at all.” This belief that nothing else has intrinsic values, allows flexibility of a moral decision. For example a lie isn’t intrinsically wrong; it’s wrong if it hurts someone but it can be right if it’s for the “best interests” of that person. This explains why Fletcher strongly disagrees with Intrinsic Fallacy which asserts that ‘good’ or ‘bad’ properties are in the actions e.g.
They also believe that there is no force greater than man and the man is the creator of the world. They do not believe in faith and blessings; naturalists believe that things happen because we as individuals make them happen for ourselves. Naturalists are also known as atheists. Supernaturalists on the other hand are the complete opposite of naturalists and believe that all things are created by God. The supernaturalists believe that “the material world is a derivative realm created by God” (Entwistle, 2010, p.98).
He said morality was innate; a part of us (a priori), and it was our moral duty to carry it out for good, which must lead to God. Accordingly Kant says good actions should be universalisable and free, so basically when making our ethical decisions we should ask ourselves a simple question "What if everybody did that?" if the answer is no, then the categorical imperative tells us that the action is wrong. So if I cheated on my AS-level exam to pass and be successful in the future, this would be my maxim, however I would not want others to do the same and therefore this action would be wrong according to Kant’s Categorical Imperative. My cheating pre-supposes that most people do not cheat even though they have the same reasons to cheat as I have.
Explain the term evil (30m) There are 2 different types of evil moral (caused by human beings) and natural (caused by nature). There is a logical problem of evil which is called the inconsistent triad; this is the argument that God cannot possess all the Omni characteristics with the existence of evil. This is a logical inconsistency. The existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of God; it is logically incoherent to accept that both exist together. God being omnipotent means that he can do anything which means he could have created a world free from evil.