This postulate of God has origin in one’s own reason which would necessarily mean that submitting to will of God is submitting to one’s own reason. The need of God arises because the relationship between moral law and happiness is not guaranteed in this world. So here God comes to the rescue and thus necessitates the compatibility of virtue and realization of highest good. The postulate of immortality is very much interwoven with the postulate of God. Taking into account the sensuous nature of human beings, Kant states that it is very difficult for a man to be righteous without hope.
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.
This is beneficial to a scoeity as they would be able to establish common laws and rules. Furthermore, ait gives concrete reason to be moral as it, even though is a retained belief that cannot be proven with certainty, it has remained the most comprehensive theories for morality. This is evident as the United Nations Declaration Human Rights is argued solely from the theory of Natural Law. It therefore rational as it utilises practical reason as argued by Aquinas who said that 'reason' is the way to discover Natural Law
Our bodies may be governed by the laws of physics, but we still make choices of our own freewill. God is an all knowing God, but his knowing our choices in advance does not prohibit or even change our ability to make them. God is bound by rules he set in place, he gave us our free will and cannot take that away. With that decision He knew a world would have to exist with good and evil. Some rare instances may occur where free will is altered, such is the case with mental illnesses, where the victim is no longer in control of his or her actions, but in other cases such as abuse or brainwashing, the victim still exercises his or her free will to choose his or her own
As free beings we were obligated to do what was 'reasonable', a free person has to act rationally - has to act without inconsistency. His assistance to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, as well as aesthetics has had a thoughtful impact on nearly every philosophical faction that followed him. It is unfeasible, Kant argues, to expand knowledge to the supersensible monarchy of tentative metaphysics. The cause that knowledge has these restraints, Kant argues, is that the mentality plays a vigorous role in comprising the features of knowledge and restraining the mind's admittance to the empirical monarchy of space and time. 4 John Stuart Mill was a proponent of utilitarianism, an ethical theory developed by Jeremy Bentham.
One of the strengths of Natural Law theory is that it can be applied to any situation. This would mean that there is no need to look at specific situations circumstances to decide whether an action is morally right or wrong, you would just have to apply Natural Law Theory to it, regardless of any personal opinion, so therefore it is more straightforward. Also, because of this, this means that there is a certainty to the application of Natural Law in a society. If this was applied in every situation in a specific society, this would bring a level of security to the society, because there would be a set of base morals, which would be followed by everyone, and therefore making said society peaceful and harmonious. Natural Law Theory is a complete theory within itself, in that it contains everything you need to deal with character, motive and actions, and gives a day to day system for living a complete moral life, of which there is the benefit of fulfilling the purpose of which humans are designed to be on the Earth, according to the belief of Aquinas.
Or is D the limit to where anyone can question existence? Anyways I am in favor of and agree with the cosmological argument because its rational claims are explicit and that there can only be a selected few irrational oppositions to this argument. I believe that this argument deserves thumbs up not only because of the fact that it’s very informative but because it was well supported with “the possibilities” being debunked. I would like to concede that the elimination of possibilities of A, B, and C, are essential for D to be considered valid according to disjunctive syllogism. D acknowledges the logic and reasoning that a supreme being does exist, although we do not have an exact idea of its personal and moral qualities.
If God is assumed to be good, then all of his actions are good, and this would include the creation of right and wrong. The idea of “wrong” would never exist in this case as God only does and creates things that are good. While the author never gives up the idea of God being good, as he states that all theologians also believe this and then proceeds to brainstorm potential reasoning for the creation of “wrong.” He suggests that a deity, more superior than God, gave him orders to do so. This is a plausible conclusion to the premise of God being good, but also creating right and wrong. But he seems more certain about the idea of the devil creating this
The first premise states that “If there is evil, God either isn’t willing or isn’t able to prevent it.” The idea of a God who is neither willing nor able to do something is almost immediately equating to no God. Without even delving further into the argument, we can already see where these premises are leading. The second premise states that “If God is all powerful, he can prevent it” and the third states that “If God is perfectly good, God will prevent it if God can.” There is no denying that the Judeo-Christian possibly Islamic God is supposed to be both all powerful and perfectly good (as stated in the fourth premise of the argument). However, Laurence also mentions that perhaps it just does not make sense for there to be a world without evil, bringing to light the validity of the second and third premises. He speaks of how a world with humans is better than a world without, and because of this it is just does not make sense to have a world without evil.
“Sentience” is poorly defined and even more poorly understood. Some people make fine philosophical distinctions among sentience, consciousness, self-awareness, and cognition, whereas others are more careless in using these terms. Fortunately, we need not argue here over how to define these concepts. In whatever sense the pro-choicer means the word he chooses, it invariably has to do with some sort of mental activity. We can distinguish among three levels of “having” mental activity, and, for a dialectical defense of the pro-life position, the distinction among these three levels is more important than distinctions among different types of mental activity.