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.
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.
For example, one of the Ten Commandments ‘Thou shall not kill’ should not be broken and is applied to situations such as the death penalty or abortion. This links to the divine command theory. This is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that what is moral is determined by God and that to be moral is to follow his commands. This theory claims that morality is ultimately based on God and the right action is the one that God requires. The divine commands vary in religions but in the end, they all have in common that moral obligations depend on God.
If God is all knowing and all powerful and all good, therefore god would not want us to suffer and not put evil on earth. I believe that evil and suffering does exist because of the simple fact that we wouldn’t know the difference between good and bad, sad and happiness, love and hate. We wouldn’t know to appreciate god and everything he does for us. God being an all tri-omni god would not put anything on earth that he knew we couldn’t handle. There are two varieties of evil, moral and natural evil.
A. Based on the theodical “free-will defense,” it is possible for a God to possess the properties of being “benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient” while at the same time allowing the existence of evils; therefore, the two should not be contradictory. B. Set aside all the legislative, judicial and government regulatory systems, it is an indisputable fact that the all-loving God has given us, humans, free-will, which is defined as a “free and responsible choice” by Swinburne. The “choice” here represents a decision between good and evil, which implies that there is always an inevitable non-predetermined possibility (of either evil or good or both), which may substantially harm or (and) benefit the others, the initiator (one who makes the choice), and perhaps, the world, that comes with this privileged free-will.
If God breaks this, then he is not being omnibenevolent (all good), which is another of his attributes. However lust is far from morally right, so God cannot experience it. Leading on from that, since God is confined to being morally perfect, he has no choice whether he is or not, he can’t be omnipotent. Another aspect of this argument is can God fear? We are either scared of the unknown (e.g death) or something more powerful than ourselves (e.g lions).
Evil is something caused by living things with free will which is intended to cause harm or misery to something or someone else, though different people have different views on what evil is. One argument is the atheist argument, and that God can’t exist if he allows evil. John Mill, an atheist philosopher, says that God can’t be real because if he was then he would not allow this much suffering to happen, especially to innocent people. Another non-religious view is that sometimes bad things happen, not because a ‘God’ has made it, but just because not everything that happens in the world is good. For example, there was a mini-bus crash where 12 children and a teacher were killed, and an atheist would say the mini-bus and lorry were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that it certainly did not have anything to do with God.
Although this may not seem like God is issuing the justice being met, believers of the DJT will argue that God is the one controlling the people who are sentencing the criminal with their punishment, and therefore God is ensuring that justice is met. The DJT is a more plausible explanation of God relating to morality than both the Divine Informer Theory (DIT) and the Divine Command Theory (DCT). The DIT states that God has given us knowledge of moral law, and has done so through religious texts or by putting the knowledge directly in our mind. This is not plausible, however, because many religious texts are interpreted differently, and therefore moral standards differ from culture to culture. Therefore, DIT isn’t a
Tocqueville argues that the only thing which will keep Americans away from these dangers, which would undoubtedly lead to despotism is religion as source of moral education. He says that all decisions by man are a result of the values which man has received from god and without these values we would be left to a life full of disorder. Religion indirectly affects the state through mores which are described as “the whole moral and intellectual state of a people.”(287) These mores are what prevents democracies from being engulfed by the dangers which are products of tyranny and despotism. In a state without religion “each man gets into the way of having nothing but confused and changing notions about the matters of greatest importance to himself and his fellows”(444) and when combating materialism, the presence of religion “places the
God is also personal as he is not a depersonalised force. He cares about his creations and caring beings are not created by uncaring beings. God wants us to act towards each other with justice and mercy; if god weren’t personal he wouldn’t mind what we did and would not tell us what to do. God is good because if he wasn’t he would be oxymoron, he would not be able to demand goodness if he was not good. God rules by moral standards.