The issues with this option mainly deal with the definition of a theistic God. If morality is independent of God and God’s commands only exist because the moralities of actions are predetermined, then God is no longer sovereign. If morals are independent of God’s commands then God is not sovereign over morality. This goes against the definition of a theistic God which defines God as the creator and ruler over everything. It also puts limits on God’s power.
In response to the option in which God creates a world with free agents and no evil, a world with no evil would mean a world with no good, so it would be impossible for God to create a free agents that only choose good, since evil does not exist. It would limit free will, and limited free will is not free will. The reason why it would be impossible for good to exist without evil existing is that we need evil to exist so that we can define it and understand what it is and how it works. After we find out that information, we could base what good is off of what evil is not, which is what we do now with
This further reinforces that we have no choice or influence on our lives and the events that happen, so therefore God will know the ethical decisions we will make as he has already predestined them in our lives. Hard determinism is the teaching that denies humanity has free will and believes that all actions have a prior cause. It removes moral responsibility for our actions. Hard determinists would therefore agree with the statement above, and will believe that God does infact know what ethical decisions we will make as he has already perceived it. This idea links to predestination in the fact that it believes everything in the universe- even human action- has a cause which precedes it.
On the other hand its weakness is that human can affect it in other aspects besides deathless and birth less nature but in definition they do not recognize that. Prominence over human welfare and determinative nature regarding human experience –since both deal with human then they can be combined. The strength is that it when we put our lives according to the sacred we are likely to live a life free of problem associated to ungodliness. On the other hand it is important to perceive the true reality that underlies our religion .If we don’t do so we are likely to suffer and destroy what is already positive about our religion hence suffering. In that case religion will be the dividing factor instead of a bonding factor as it should
He claims that we can be certain of what we clearly and distinctly perceive without knowing that God exists, but only at the time when we perceive it. God’s existence adds a general certainty to what we clearly and distinctly perceive to be true. Descartes says, “When I said that we can know nothing for certain until we are aware that God exists, I expressly declared that I was speaking of knowledge of those conclusions that can be recalled when we are no longer attending to the arguments by which we deduced them.” This meaning that when in regard to the earlier quotes of, “I am certain that God exists only because I am certain of whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive and I am certain of whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive only because I am certain that God exists,” of which is claimed to be circular, Descartes claims there are two interpretations to these. According to the first statement, while we are clearly and distinctly perceiving some particular proposition, then we can be certain of that proposition, but because of the possibility of the evil demon, I lose this certainty as soon as we turn our attention away from it, as we may have been deceived that we did in fact actually perceive it clearly and distinctly. So, therefore we do not actually know that the proposition is true unless we are actually attending to it.
McCloskey contended against the three mystical verifications, which are the cosmological argument, the argument from design and the teleological argument. He called attention to the presence of evil on the planet that God made. He likewise called attention to that it is irrational to live by trust or faith. As indicated by McCloskey, confirmations do not essentially assume a fundamental part in the conviction of God. Page 62 of the article expresses that "most theists do not come to have faith in God as a premise for religious conviction, however come to religion as a consequence of different reasons and variables."
Another attribute is the concept of God as omniscient. ...read more. Conclusion Donât be afraid! You are worth more than many sparrows.â (Luke 12:7) This attribute of God being all-knowing is essential as Godâs justice depends on it. God cannot be just if God does not know everything.
According to hard determinism we are not free in the sense required for moral responsibility, and therefore, what happens cannot be affected by choices that are free in the sense. But what happens may nevertheless be caused by the decisions we chose and the choices we make. A reaction to hard determinism is that if it were true, we would have no reason to attempt to accomplish anything, to try and improve our lives because our decisions and choices would make no difference. If everything we do is pre determined then why try hard to achieve anything, if you are meant to do a certain something, it will happen, it is already determined for you, so the hard determinist would say. In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion.
He will be judged by those who know him in the real world, and if a higher power exists, will also be judged in the spiritual world as well. An unethical action performed by a man with a religious belief is the most unlikely event that would occur out of the four possible scenarios because he will most likely not place himself in a situation where he needs to make a decision that could potentially be considered unethical. If this situation were to occur, he could simply confess his sins and be forgiven on the spot, avoiding judgment once the confession is made in full and pity is recognized in self. “It seems that morality and religion are perceived as separate realms in order to accomplish the teleological suspension.” -The Teleological Suspension of the Ethical by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon Let’s think about why a religious man committing an unethical deed is deemed justified in the name of God. Why does he get a special treatment because of his beliefs?
And for morality to require God in such a way, there must be a direct link between the two. I believe that morality is defined by God, therefore immoral actions are wrong solely because God forbids them. Similarly, the “rightness” of moral actions is only because God has commanded them. In today's world things are defined as “right” or “wrong” or “moral” and “immoral.” This is because God, is the one that has allowed us to even understand what morality is. I believe that God is the creator and sustainer of all things, and that we would not even be self aware, let alone aware of right and wrong, if God had not created within us his image, and therefore the ability to make moral distinctions.