This is an aspect of moral evil as Adam influenced it himself and this is believed to have been passed down to all humans which allows us to have evil characteristics within our natures. However, Christians also believe that “good” people are rewarded in the afterlife, and people who have behaved badly are punished. Justice is not always served in this lifetime so people now believe it must be served in the afterlife, therefore suggesting that there is an afterlife and a part of us goes to it to be rewarded. This would suggest that the statement is wrong as theories of life after death do allow belief that there is a solution for the problem of evil. It also suggest that more people might strive to do the right things in life so that they get rewarded in the afterlife, this would also cut the crime rates and make people better and more virtuous.
Reconciling the existence of Evil, in a world that was created by God The question of how can evil exist if an all powerful, all knowing, and morally perfect being, God, exists. He should know of the evil, and since he’s morally perfect and all powerful be able to stop it. Many moral philosophers have attempted to answer this question throughout our history. Some have used it to prove that God doesn’t exist, others to show the nature of evil. Plato discussed the question of God being good.
Cameron Farrell God’s Involvement in the Creation of Right and Wrong The argument pertaining to God’s involvement in the existence of right and wrong is very complex, as one can gather from analyzing the text. The general idea the author is trying to convey to the reader is that it is difficult to say that God is good while also saying he created right and wrong, and specified the differences between the two. The writer is not trying to argue against the differences between right and wrong, but more so the situation that exists within the difference between the two. The situation at hand is if the differences of right and wrong were God’s decision to create, or not. If God did create the difference between right and wrong then that means that for God, initially, there wasn’t a difference between to two.
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.
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. But this could also just lead us back to the original problem, bringing to mind the thought that if God is able to do anything and everything, then he should be able to create a perfect world with no evil. The fifth premise states simply “But, there’s evil.” Laurence distinguishes between the two different kinds of evil when explaining this argument. He says that natural evil can
It’s important to address this danger, and although faith can certainly create the benefits described in How God Changes Your Brain, it’s irresponsible to ignore that faith, being a psychological tool, can be used for both positive and negative means. A good part of How God Changes Your Brain is the author’s respect for people who do not share their beliefs. The book is more an explanation for why people like religion, rather than an argument for religion’s existence. Changes Your Brain doesn’t use literary prowess to emphasize a strong tone, but rather keeps a level and clear voice throughout the book, it has the opposite the tone of a preacher. I wish that the book addressed why some people firmly reject or accept faith, on a psychological basis.
‘The moral argument for God is not convincing.' Discuss. (10 marks) Kant’s moral argument attempted to answer questions surrounding the idea of “right and wrong” and whether we got these ideas from a God and subsequently whether our morality depends on God. Thus his argument obtains a stronger focus on morality and duty as he felt it was not in human knowledge to prove God’s existence which is arguably why part that proves God is not necessarily as convincing and Kant merely states that we should postulate the idea of God as to explain morality it is necessary to believe that God exists. Kant believed that everybody had an innate moral awareness, “two things fill my mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe... the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me”.
Good will is not good because of what it does, although it can make good things happen. Good will’s only purpose is to produce good. Happiness does not come from reason, our ability to reason limits our happiness. Reason is only to help people to produce good will. 2.
He further explains that the evil deeds that we perform are of our own accord, and that we are punished by God’s justice because they are done out of our own free will. This argument leads perfectly into the question of free will because, like Aug, I agree that we are not taught evil. Aug explains to Ev that it is impossible to learn evil deeds. It is impossible to learn something evil because our intelligence is inherently good. Since our intelligence is inherently good it is not possible to take away from something that is good, something that is evil.
It typically fashions itself in a question such as this. How can a good God allow so much evil to take place if He loves us? This is often asked by but not limited to someone who has been hurt while serving God faithfully or by someone who has no significant knowledge of who God truly is. The problem of evil also presents itself as more of a statement rather than a question as well. If God is all powerful and in complete control why does he allow such evil things to take place?