It also puts limits on God’s power. According to the definition of a theistic God, God is omnipotent. If God is all powerful then he should be able to command whatever he wants but by saying that morality is independent of God would mean that God is subject to the rules of morality (Fisher, 359). All in all the main issues with the Autonomy Thesis are that it would only be reasonable if one was not considering the existence of a theistic
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
Kant’s view uses a categorical imperative, in which ethics is based upon an absolute, objective, deontologcial theory, in which intentions are more important than consequences. Kant believed that an ethics should be based around something entirely good. He decided that the only thing entirely good in the whole universe is ‘good will’. Everybody must decide ethical decisions in a way in which they put themselves last, fulfill their duty, and commit only selfless acts. This may be psychologically impossible, as many believe there is always a selfish reason for any good deed, however Kant only proposed a theory, and
However since we already have an idea of God as this perfect and infinite being, he must exist. Furthermore, since the natural light clears deception as an imperfection as well as not existing, God is a non-deceiver, he exist and is perfect. After the cogito argument and natural light examination of the deceptive God, Descartes discards the hypothesis that God is a deceiver. Since God is all-good, he would not deceive us. For that reason, Descartes introduces the evil demon/genius instead.
He firmly thought that God is a righteous one who at the end of time will deal with those who rejected him. Augustine`s argument that evil is a `deprivation of good` rather than a positive substance created by God has been supported by some modern thinkers. Brian Davies describes evil as `a gap between what there is and what there ought to be`. Augustine`s argument that evil has resulted from the abuse of human free will has also been supported by modern thinkers. It seems clear that humans choosing to act in the wrong ways cause much of the evil and suffering in the world.
A) Explain Augustine’s theodicy (25marks) St Augustine (ad 354-430), both Augustine’s theodicy and his argument concerning evil were both originally based on the bible. Augustine himself had many beliefs, one of his main beliefs was that god had made the world and when making the world he had made it free from flaws. He believed very strongly that god is good, omnipotent and omniscience. As he believed for god to be these things he had a problem which was, if god is good and omnipotent and it was god that created the world why is there evil in the world? He solved this problem by saying that god is responsible for the evil in the world by defining evil as “privation”.
He based his argument on the statement “Does God will something because it is good or is something good because it is willed by God?” There are two ‘horns’ to this argument which stem from the statement; these both critiques of the link between religion and morality. Horn one questions “Does God command x because it is good.” This argument suggests that God is inferior to good, or perhaps good could even be temporally prior to God. In addition both God’s omnipotence and omniscience are damaged; he cannot claim full responsibility for creating the world and therefore cannot possibly have full control as it is not his creation. He also may not have the knowledge of right and wrong if it is independent of him. An independent good takes away from religious motivation to do good, we can be good for the sake of being good as opposed to seeking eschatological reward, for example going to heaven in the afterlife.
Analyse Hick’s vale of soul making theodicy. (30 marks) John Hick’s vale of soul making theodicy is a modern form of the Irenaean theodicy. This theodicy argues that both natural and moral evil are important, so they have a good purpose and therefore an all loving God is justified in allowing evil. Hick claimed that God had made humans morally imperfect to help them complete the process of creation themselves. He argues that humans are made in the image of God with the potential to accomplish perfection in the future, and then humans will then grow to become the likeness of God.
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.
5. Reconciling belief in the existence of God with the existence of evil is a grave problem for the theist. Among the responses to the two versions of the problem of evil include a defense of free will and the plausible reasons God may have for allowing evil to