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
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. Without God, I believe that this world cannot explain what morality
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.
To what extent is the via negativa the only way to talk about God Within this essay I will be arguing that the via negativa is a very unhelpful way to talk about God as if we were to only talk about him negatively we would ultimately never know anything of God’s nature. Instead, I will argue that analogy is a better way to talk of God and I will refer to Aquinas’ ideas of analogical language. The via negativa (or apophatic way) claims that people can only talk about God in negative terms because he is transcendent and utterly different and greater than anything we can comprehend. Thus we cannot say what God is because his nature is beyond our comprehension. The word “good” in reference to God is meaningless as we cannot know what this entails; it is completely different from saying “the man is good”.
“God can only ever be understood partially and ineffectually, if at all.” Considering at least 3 different methods for understanding religious language, to what extent do you agree? Plan: Agree with partially but disagree with ineffectually Using methods of Wittgenstein, analogy and symbols Partially * Aquinas – analogy, analogy can be used to describe God in a way humans can understand * EG God is a warrior – can be used to convey the meaning that God is a fighter but still different * Could argue that since God is indescribable, does analogy tell us anything? * God is indescribable – must assume that he’s indescribable, that’s why we can only describe him partially and not fully Is effective * Wittgenstein – language games, true for the people that believe in God, bringing God down to a human level, therefore easier to understand * Christianity’s popularity can be used as an example to say that God is effective, otherwise no one would believe in him The statement “God can only ever be understood partially and ineffectually, if at all” is correct to a certain extent. It is true that God can only ever be understood partially but it is incorrect to say that God can only ever be understood ineffectually. 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.
Since we know evil and suffering is a necessary bi-product of human life, we must acknowledge that evil does exist. This proves problematic as it then brings into question the traditional theist’s view of God. However, no traditional theist would accept Hume’s conclusions because it denies God of His perfection. There are ways of sidestepping this issue such as, atheism, deism and polytheism, but none are accepted by traditional theists, and are therefore not a true solution to the problem. A theodicy is seen as a true solution as it defends God’s nature in the face of evil and suffering.
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
To what extent is via negative the only way to talk about God? Via negative, or the apophatic way, is a theory that suggests it is only possible to talk about God in ‘negative’ terms, as opposed to talking about him in a positive light calling him things such as all loving or a good god, as talking about God in a positive way, statements can be misconstrued and misleading as to what we actually mean by a good God for example. To talk about God as a creator or a holy father and describing his good actions and love, only showcases our own ideas about what these things actually are, which can put the wrong idea across. It is better to try and get our limited human minds around the concept of a mysterious God, without characteristics as such, that may be inaccurate. Via negative features often in Buddhism’s religious language.
Many, if not most, Christians would argue that they believe the second statement and that morality depends entirely on God as he is omnipotent and omnibenevolant and so is the source of goodness. One reason why atheists would argue that Christians cannot follow any other statement is because if morality was grounded if something other than God, it means that atheists could do morally good actions consciously, without requiring religious faith, and could perhaps be more morally good than a Christian, making belief in or obedience to God pointless. Therefore, theists need to claim that morality can only be understood through God because what He commands is good, to set them apart from and above the rest of society in
Rene Descartes’ existence of god The times in which we live in today make it almost impossible to prove God’s existence, and have many skeptics, scientists, and atheists’ trying to prove otherwise. One can even argue that if God’s existence was possible to prove then one would have no need for faith. Rene Descartes had faith and put forth several arguments to try and prove the existence of God in his Meditations, particularly his Third Meditation: of God, that he exists. To begin, Descartes tries to prove God’s existence with “causal arguments.” He claims that there must be at least as much reality in the cause as there is in the effect, the effect being himself, humans, earth, etc…;