Augustine defends the god of theism by rejecting the existence of evil as a force or power opposed to god as it would reject the premise that god is omnipotent. Below are the ways in which he justifies moral and natural evil, which respectively mean evil caused by human acts, and evil events caused by the processes of nature. To justify evil, he solves the problem by defining evil as a ‘privation’ – which means when something is ‘evil’, it is not defined to contain bad qualities but is seen to be falling short of perfection, or what it is expected to be. Take a rapist as an example. Adopting Augustine’s idea of ‘evil’, we are to say that he is not living up to standards expected of human beings.
Which follows on from which? Do the Gods make piety, or fit in with it? Euthyphro states “Is what is pious loved by the Gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved?” Essentially what Euthyphro is saying is ‘Does God command what is good because it is good, or is the good “good” because commanded it?’ This dilemma leaves us with an argument based upon circular logic, and no matter how we seem to go about answering it we are left with the same predicament. We could side with the latter half of this
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.
It is unrealistic for Kant to expect all human beings to follow the universal law, as not everyone will use their rationality to do their duty. Human beings don’t all know what is morally right or wrong. Therefore it is unrealistic for Kant to expect all humans to be intrinsically good. Kant argues that humans have moral faculty meaning we are aware of what is right or wrong based on our reason. However this is an unrealistic expectation for Kant to think.
What is good is good within it. People should not behave in certain ways only because you think that God is asking it. If God were to command that rape is good, it would still not be so. Rape is bad within itself. Just like this there are more issues that people should consider bad even if in the future god would say that it is good.
This results in people believing in a certain God and only that God, for the other Gods don’t appeal real to them. The outcome of being loved is caused by someone loving it. If there are multiple Gods, which ones are truly real? “And do you not see what is loved of the Gods is the holy and this is the same as what is dear to them”(20).To Socrates, Gods are useless and only take fame for what good things happen, not the negatives. Primarily, the issue faced by Euthyphro is that certain actions and beliefs are good simply because God favor’s them.
This is a counter to Locke’s argument but I feel it is a poor one as the premises are not certainly true they are based on falsehoods especially ones about God being the perfect being; that just depends what you believe. Therefore I believe Rene’s God argument poses no significant threat to Locke’s theory. Plato, one of the men who influenced Descartes, argued that not only some ideas and knowledge are innate but
McCloskey is reminding atheists the ways theists argue for their belief in God. He is reminding atheists the reasons they believe that there is no God. He feels atheism is superior to theism; however; I find that his opinions only strengthen my belief that there is a God. Proof, as he states, carries no weight for a theist. He is half correct in his statement as a theist does not believe in the proofs individually, but finds enough evidence in them to form the belief that God does exist; He is the creator of the universe, and He is morally perfect.
The second is that God is omnipotent but not wholly good and allows evil to happen or even promotes it, which would also nullify the status of God. The third is that God is neither omnipotent nor wholly good where that being should never have had the title of God in the first place. The way Mackie has presented his argument against the existence of God relies heavily on the logic of the incompatible triad premise which creates quite an interesting situation for the theist to explain since the triad is a solid paradox. Mackie discusses the arguments made by theists to defend that God and Evil are not mutually exclusive, and why the arguments don’t adequately address the issue of the incomplete triad. The first premise is that God
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?