Hick argues that if God had created humanity in his presence then the gap between God and humanity would be so small that it would limit our freedom. Hick calls this knowledge gap between God and humanity ‘The Epistemic Distance’. Hick further explains that if we were created too close to God in terms of knowledge, we would be overwhelmed by him and would worship him for the wrong reasons. Humans are not born
The three methods that can be used to understand language are: Wittgenstein’s language games, the concept of analogy and the concept of religious symbols. By utilizing these concepts, God can be understood more easily and can be described in a manner humans can understand. In regards to understanding God partially, the statement is correct in saying this. God is a transcendent and perfect being that simply cannot be comprehended by the human mind, the language we use is ineffective in saying what God is because it is language used to describe humans, God is not a human therefore this is not an effective method. Thomas Aquinas
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.
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
PART A: Explain Mill’s challenge to the teleological argument. (25marks) The teleological argument claims that God designed the world with a purpose. God is often described to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. Mill criticises the idea of the teleological argument, he doesn’t believe that the world is designed by a God because within nature there are cruelty and crimes that are unpunished. Mill argues that if God designed the universe he wouldn’t have created something containing any evil at all it wouldn’t fit in with his description.
Therefore, believing God to encompass all of these traits would leave anyone in their right mind wondering how anything bad could ever happen in the world. Some suggest that accepting two of these three qualities allows for the possibility of evil. For example evil could thrive if God were omniscient and omnibenevolent, but not omnipotent. God would then be all-knowing of the evil that takes place. Also, he would crave goodness in the world.
Only he can redeem, justify, and sanctify us, and we need all three for our salvation. So we understand that our nature is sinful, but through Jesus we can win the battle against our flesh. Paul wrote that through the law we come unto the knowledge that we are sinful. We understand that through the work of the law, that we cannot be justified in the sight of God. We must know that we are justified by grace apart from any works in the
Descartes declares he has to determine if there is a God and if he does exist, whether he can be a deceiver. The reason he has to determine the existence of God and what he is, rests in his theories of ideas. This is because we do not know if there is an outside world and we can almost imagine everything, so all depends on God’s existence and if he is a deceiver. “To prove that this non-deceiving God exists, Descartes finds in his mind a few principles he regards as necessary truths which are evident by the “natural light” which is the power or cognitive faculty for clear and distinct perception.” If arguments is presented in logical trains of thought, people could not help but to be swayed and to understand those arguments. Natural light
Boethius argues that the following statements cannot be all true; evil exists, God is omnipotent, and God is all-loving. He says if God can prevent evil, but don’t, then he isn’t all loving. If God intends to prevent evil, but can’t then he isn’t omnipotent. Also, if God intends to prevent evil and is capable of doing it, then how can evil exist? Lady Philosophy counter argument will attempt to show that this is not actually the case.
McCloskey attempts to make an argument for the non-existence of God and to give reasons why atheism is more comforting than theism. This paper is a response to that article which will address certain ideas raised by Mr. McCloskey. This author is a theist and will present arguments to show the reasoning for the existence and necessity of God. To begin with, McCloskey suggests in his article that the theist’s arguments are “proofs” which do not provide definitive evidence for the existence of God, so therefore, they should be discarded. This is not a justified argument due to the fact that theists do not try to definitely prove the existence of God.