What I don't see is any rational argument that God could not have done other than what He has don't from all eternity by simply willing it? If morality is not an illusion and not the product of chance, then morals must be the result of an intelligent designer. Similarly, since we have no abstract idea of existence, distinct from the conception of particular objects, there is no basis for claiming, as does Descartes in Meditations V, that the idea of God implies his actual existence. Would you be a responsible parent? The Actuality does not 'exist' as defined as within the temporal sphere of Becoming or Potentiality, which is all, poor me, can find descriptive of my 'personalistic' ontology. Cleanthes responds to this set of objections with a counter-example that is meant to discredit these criticisms and doubts. In an especially important passage, which was inserted into the Dialogues shortly before Hume died, Philo elaborates on his view. Strictly speaking, the term connotes an attitude towards the gods one of hatred rather than making a statement about their nature. Is he both able and willing? The accounts of , as presented in scripture and elsewhere, are supposed to confirm the authenticity and authority of scripture and the prophets and, more importantly, establish that God has revealed himself to human beings through these special acts or events.
I guess I interpreted your statement as ¨should¨ since it lowers your burden of proof from showing that given an omnibenevolent and omnipotent he should do X instead of it logically follows that he would do X. Suppose we heard an articulate voice coming from the clouds and the words uttered contain a message instructing us in a way that is worthy of a great, superior being. In this way, the evidence of experience shows us, Hume suggests, that nature is uniform and regular. And the things Law says seem to me to show that he does not understand it. And perhaps, ontologically, it does give expression to Kierkegaard's 'idea' of what constitutes 'faith', or living within the 'awareness' of paradox. They can live a moral life even though they don't believe in a divine being.
It is possible to construct evolutionary trees tracing the history of a faulty inherited gene through species by looking at which species emerged from what predecessors phylostratigraphy , and through other genetic techniques. If you then want to hold a completely skeptical position that what we perceive could just be god trying to fool us an evil god pretending to be good then you must hold the same complete skepticism about other beliefs. The people in question doing the evil acts are certainly not the created with and expressing the highest good. Because there is no free will, there is no way to assert that God is moral. It's just that I believe there is some point in the comparison of the religious sense of the mystery of these things with the more what? But that just begs the question against the classical theist, who holds that evil is metaphysically parasitic on good, and thus given the convertibility of the transcendentals on being, in such a way that whatever is Being Itself would have to be Goodness Itself and therefore in no way evil. Lastly, in regard to evilbible.
The scientific mandate, that there is a need to relate such personal ideas, to their external counterpart, can perhaps be considered a viable thesis, but as the 'imagination' can be more extensive than the possible evidence, and that the 'rational' mind is not always 'reasonable' will remain a great difficulty for 'science'. In a different world, we'd have had no incentive for choosing evil. So Time A certainly has problems 'for me'. At least, I think that is one valid way of thinking about what it means to have defeated sin, or death, or Satan. That may not be the most comforting answer, and it may not be the answer we thought we would find, but it is the answer nonetheless. What an immense profusion of beings animated and organized, sensible and active!. It makes perfect sense that a rational God would impose order on the universe in order to give rise to beings like ourselves who can recognise it.
Is he neither able nor willing? Miller, Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1985. I can understand if he was a bit testy, since my own comments in response to Eric were themselves a bit testy, though my testiness was directed not at Law specifically but more generally at atheists who do not understand the difference between classical theism and theistic personalism. Therein lies the problem for the atheist. And would we not have a duty to fight that decrepit? We have, with a high degree of certainty, stumbled upon something real. It is very unfortunate that this type of gene exists, but, thankfully the march of evolution means that most dysfunctional genes are eventually removed from the gene pool because they reduce the average viability of offspring. Also, that such a god appears not to exist, or actively hides itself, is a source of confusion, conflict, war and stress and is again more likely the antics of an evil god.
You are conflating two separate issue, one of optimal functionality, the other of immortality. Brian Davies can help you fill in the blanks. In as the , the proposition of God not being wholly good would be an. Greater good might accrue to others, but it would not be in our self-interest. I find that even earnest people trying in good faith to define these things disagree significantly in basic areas. Adam and Eve were driven from the garden and thereby prevented from accessing the tree of life verses 23—24.
First, it would not be necessary to make everything good, only to prevent evil from harming those who are blameless or good. The differing assumptions are theistic personalism versus classical theism. Why cannot I 'identify' with the absolute of the Classical God of Theism? But it can also be 'mean' as my children have pointed out. I have made both good choices and evil choices, and so has every other person I have ever known. I'd love to read it, and we'd love to post it here at Strange Notions.
The evil god game allows you to create your temples, to gain faith so that you can defeat those who claim your god presence is false. God contains no logical distinctions? As an amendment to the above, I would add that I will not be refuting classical theism in a dialogue. Our natural fear of future events encourages a conception of God that is severe and cruel. Simply put, it is possible for a move to be a good one even though no human could possibly ever imagine why it is good or imagine the full extent of the good that can come of it. Are you talking about our industrialized society? In mounting up, therefore, from effects to causes, we must either go on in tracing an infinite succession, without any ultimate cause at all, or must at last have recourse to some ultimate cause, that is necessarily existent… D, 9.