Many philosophers and atheists believe that a loving God should not let His children suffer. Explaining the logical problem of evil, Horner states that evil and good cannot coexist. For that reason, if God exists, then, there is no evil. Likewise, if evil exists, then, God is a fairytale.
Existence of evil is, therefore, the main opposition to Gods existence (Horner). Theologians, on the other hand, maintain that God allows evil as a way of strengthening peoples faith in Him. However, the same people uphold that God is a loving father. As a result, God protects His people from evil and suffering. Therefore, theological doctrines are sometimes inconsistent with each other. This essay tries to find out whether there is a logical contradiction between the existence of God and evil.
There is a contradiction between the existence of an all-powerful God and the existence of evil (Mackie). God is supposed to be omnipotent or unstoppable. Therefore, what God can do has no limits. In addition, people should not suffer from all manners of evil in the presence of an all-powerful God. Some logical rules connect evil and omnipotence (Mackie). Horney adds that good cannot exist in the presence of evil.
Therefore, a loving God must completely eliminate evil. For that reason, the notion that evil and an omnipotent God coexist is debatable. A logical explanation to the coexistence of good and evil can only be given if Gods power has a limit. As a result, some scholars have opted to restrict the meaning of omnipotence when referring to God. Amazingly, these scholars are known to record a list of some of the things an omnipotent God cannot do (Mackie). Furthermore, the problem of evil can either be emotional or intellectual (Horner).
The intellectual problem explains the relations between Evil and an omnipotent God based on the reasons. This problem is further divided into logical and probabilistic problems (Horner). The logical problem maintains that evil and God cannot coexist. According to the emotional problem, people question Gods existence when faced with hardships. These people fail to understand why a loving and an all-powerful God can allow such evils to befall them. Therefore, in some cases, the objection to Gods existence is merely emotional.
However, it is not necessary for God to eliminate all evils (Horner). In some cases, doing away with an evil may bring about a greater evil or get rid of a good that outweighs it (Horner). For instance, God cannot sterilize females to eliminate pain experienced during the birth of children. If God was to control the actions of all people, then, no one would be free. Likewise, all people would behave and act in the same manner.
God created free people with a mind that is able to differentiate between good and evil. It is, therefore, widely expected that people will commit evil because God has given them an independent mind. People commit evil out of their own freewill. This evil is what philosophers call moral evil (Guthrie). Additionally, God uses natural evil to increase the amount of good on the Earth (Guthrie). For instance, earthquakes have killed many people.
Amazingly, the same earthquakes prevent continents from eroding into oceans since they are necessary in plate tectonics (Guthrie). In addition, death is a natural way of controlling global population. Without death, resources on the Earth surface will not be enough to sustain its population (Guthrie). Religious leaders also argue that suffering, which is a form of evil, is one of the ways through which God manifests Himself to his people. Through suffering, Gods children are able to strengthen their faith in him.
However, some scholars maintain that evil is an illusion (Mackie). For that reason, what we refer to as evil is a state of mind. Citing one of the Popes, Mackie states that universal good is one of the end products of partial evil. Therefore, evil complements good. Social harmony is, thus, brought about by disorder in the society. Accordingly, disorder is harmony that people are yet to understand (Mackie).
Existence of evil has elicited the discussion as to whether God really exists. It is fallacious to say that good cannot exist without evil (Mackie). Such statements limit the powers of an omnipotent God. In addition, these statements imply that God cannot create good without creating evil. An omnipotent God can do anything. However, misfortunes such as sickness and death cast doubts on the existence of God. There is no logical explanation on why an omnipotent God can allow evil to dominate the Earth.
Theologians argue that God has enough reasons for permitting evil. However, atheists and some philosophers argue that theologians believe what they can barely prove. For that reason, what theologians propose cannot be solved scientifically. This means that their reasoning cannot be supported by further experiments, decisions or actions (Mackie). Since all sides maintain their stand, the debate on the contradiction between the existence of God and evil is far from over.
Works Cited
Guthrie, Shandon. Assessing the Problem of Evil and the Existence of God. n. d. Web..
There are lots of different religions which are spread all over the world. Different countries and nationalities have their own religious beliefs. The most widespread religion in the world is Christianity. The main is God and people pray for him. The questions of the existence of God appeared lots of times by different scholars and even hundreds years ago.
Blaise Pascal is a famous physicist and mathematician who developed and made inventions in these sciences, but his main contribution was made into the question of Gods existence. He wrote his work The Wager where he states that God either exists or not; but people should better believe as believing costs not much, and if He exists people get peace of mind and if not they lose nothing (Feinberg Pascal 1999).
Pascals work pays peoples attention to the main question of mankind, whether God exists or not and whether people should argue about it. If a person does not know the answer (and it is impossible to know for sure) and cannot make his or her own choice, he/she cannot condemn the others choices. Do not then condemn as wrong those who have made a choice, for you know nothing about it (Feinberg Pascal 1999-115).
There is no evidence of God existence, but we cannot say for sure that he does not exist. And if people do not have strong arguments that can support his or her idea it is better not to come into debate. The right thing is not to wager at all (Feinberg Pascal 1999-115).
Even if people want to warn others of making any choices they also should have a good thought. People cannot be sure about whether the choice is right or not, as they cannot be sure whether it is better not to make definite choices at all. And if the debate has already appeared there are no correct answers and both opponents are certainly at fault.
Pascal does not make people not to believe in God; vice versa he insists that it is better to believe in Him. What he says is that we should not argue others points of view as there is no right or wrong answer (Feinberg Pascal 1999-115).
Looking for some detailed arguments whether people want to believe in God or not, William Lycan and George Schlesinger made some calculations about what payoffs people can get if they believe in God.
The two nonfinite payoffs represent the eternal joy granted to the believer if God does exist, and the infinite suffering one will undergo if God exists and one chooses not to believe in Him. - 20 somewhat arbitrarily represents the inconvenience of living a devout life and continent life when one does not have to, and 20 represents the fun one would have if totally released from religious hang-ups (Feinberg Schlesinger 1999-118).
So, in conclusion, every person should make his or her own choice whether to believe in God or not. Some people can just avoid this question in order not to argue, and it i8s better to do so if you do not have some strong arguments. The question of Gods existence is very difficult to consider, as it has rather philosophical character than scientific. It is impossible to search for some math formulas and it should come from outside what decision to make.
Works Cited
Feinberg, Joel. Shafer-Landau, Russ. Reason and Responsibility. Blaise Pascal The Wager. Wadsworth Pub. Co., 1999.
Feinberg, Joel. Shafer-Landau, Russ. Reason and Responsibility. Lycan, William G. Schlesinger, George N. You Bet Your Life: Pascals Wager Defended. Wadsworth Pub. Co., 1999.
In this essay, through reconstructing St. Anselms ontological proof for the existence of God and his response to objections posed by the likes of Gaunilo, I will illustrate why Anselms proof is plausible. St. Anselm wrote the Proslogion, which he also titled Faith Seeking Understanding, after spending many days, restlessly, searching for one conclusive proof of Gods existence.
Starting from the dictate of faith or a general universal belief, he is able to construct his proof of Gods existence. Following the logic in his argument, this essay will establish that the ontological proof is a valid argument. However, as Gaunilos objection illustrates, conceptualizing alone does not proof existence in reality.
St Anselm conceived that there exists that greater than which nothing greater can be conceived (Cahn & Eckert 32). He goes further to expand that the greater than which nothing greater can be conceived must exist. Using the analogy of an art idea in the painters mind, St. Anselm distinguishes between what exists purely as an idea as juxtaposed to what is out there now in actuality (Cahn & Eckert 33).
The greater than which nothing greater can be thought is conceivable and its existence as a concept is indisputable (Cahn & Eckert 32). One would easily argue that existing concepts do not necessarily represent things existing in reality. To this Anselm responds explaining that the greater than which nothing greater can be thought exists in reality necessarily (Cahn & Eckert 33).
The greater than which nothing greater can be conceived must necessarily exist in reality because real things are superior to mere concepts. If the greater than which nothing greater can be conceived were only a concept, it would be contradictory. The contradiction stems from the fact that in reality, there exists the greater than which nothing greater can be conceived. What exists in reality is superior to what exists as a concept or idea (Cahn & Eckert 32).
St. Anselm concludes that the greater than which nothing greater can be thought is God. Just as it is contradictory to think of the greater than which nothing greater can be thought as not existing, so it is absurd to think of God as not existing. God is the creator of human beings (Cahn & Eckert 32). It is totally absurd for a human being to think of God as not existing (Cahn & Eckert 32). Further, it is absurd for a human being to conceive of anything greater or better than God.
It is absurd because according to Anselm, to do so, a human being would have become judge over his or her creator (Cahn & Eckert 32). As creator or source of being, God is the being in itself thus superior to any other being (Cahn & Eckert 32). Therefore, as Anselm expounds, it is absurd for any right thinking person to think that God exists not (Cahn & Eckert 33).
Anselm goes ahead to explain that it is not possible for one who does not know what the word God signifies to say God does not exist(Cahn & Eckert 33). Anselm contends that we think of something through a process that involves thinking of a word that signifies the thing (Cahn & Eckert 33). Therefore, understanding what the word God signifies should in itself make explicit to any right thinking person that the words God does not exist express an absurdity (Cahn & Eckert 33).
Anselm argues that the words God does not exist are meaningless because God is the greater than which nothing greater can be thought. The greater than which nothing can be thought necessarily exists in reality (Cahn & Eckert 33). The greater than which nothing greater can be thought necessarily exists in reality because real things are greater than mere concepts (Cahn & Eckert 33).
Gaunilo raised an objection to Anselms ontological proof. In his argument Gaunilo posited that if Anselms argument is valid then individuals would conceive of anything but the conceiving alone is no proof of existence (Eichhoefer 142).
Further, having the words or concepts in my mind is not dependent on something being out there or actually existing. For example, it is easy to conceive of a flying horse; and many people have even gone ahead and painted, curved or created movie or film animations of a flying horse. According to Gaunilo, individuals could easily be duped into believing that a flying horse exists yet the truth is that no such thing actually exists (Eichhoefer 142).
The fact that people conceive of flying horses does not provide proof of actual existence of flying horses. When an individual hears the words flying horse , he or she will understand what they refer to. However, the understanding per se does not warranty the existence of the understood (Popkin & Stroll 132).
This objection was aimed at countering Anselms claim that understanding what the word God signifies should help make clear to an individual that God exists. This objection is plausible because out of concepts individuals have been able to coin other concepts. Individuals are capable of imagining all sorts of things. For example, people have imagined and visualized what the end of the world will be like.
There are many movies that show what it will be like on the final day; the world coming to an end. However, the fact that individuals can conceive of the final day, end of the world, does not proof that such a day will come to pass. And even if such a day were to materialize, there is no proof that it will be as understood. Therefore, understanding what words stand for is no proof for existence (Popkin & Stroll 132).
Anselm accepted the sense in Gaunilos argument. However, he points out that God is a special case. God as the greater than which nothing greater can be thought is not merely a concept. When it comes to other things or beings, it is possible to conceive of them even when they do not actually exist (Eichhoefer 144).
For example, a carpenter can conceive of a new model chair and before he produces the new model chair, it only exists as a concept (Cahn & Eckert 34). However, as explained earlier, the greater than which nothing greater can be thought exists in reality necessarily because real things are superior to mere conceptions (Cahn & Eckert 33). If God were to be a mere concept that does not signify what actually exists, the word would not be referring to the greater than which nothing greater can be thought.
St. Anselms ontological proof of existence is plausible, as he explains, only as applied to the greater than which nothing greater can be thought. As Gaunilos objection illustrated, when applied to other things, the proof does not hold water. The proof only applies to God who is the greater than which nothing greater can be thought. As Anselm argues, the greater than which nothing greater can be thought must actually exist because real things are superior to mere concepts.
Works Cited
Cahn, Stephen M. and Eckert, Maureen. Introductory Readings: Philosophical Readings. Canada: Thompson Wadsworth, 2006
Eichhoefer, Gerald W. Enduring Issues in Philosophy: Opposing Viewpoints. Pennsylvania: Greenhaven Press, 1995
Popkin Richard Henry & Stroll, Avrum. Philosophy Made Simple. 2nd Ed. New York: Doubleday, 1993
Have you ever thought about the aim of literature and the way some works affect our attitude to God and His existence? These are only several issues discussed in the literature. In general, literature is presented by the diversity of writers and poets whose masterpieces provoke so many different opinions, contradictory points of view and critical articles. The works of literature written in verse are especially interesting and pleasant to read as poets use such beautiful language to present their ideas and vision of some objects. The present paper deals with the works of such famous authors as Alexander Pope and Charles Montesquieu and their works, which touch upon different aspects of human soul, nature and God. The works of both Pope and Montesquieu contain the ideas of humanity, existence of God and part of a man in the life of the society.
To start with it is necessary to give the brief discourse in Popes work An Essay on Man. In this work the author tries to show the readers three major issues. First of all, the poet suggests his own enduring visualization of humanity. He states that the universe is a link of the chain that connects God with the lowest form of our life. Secondly, the poet demonstrates and discusses the plan of God. According to this plan the existence of evil is obvious for people to understand the real value of good and God as it is. This is a paradox of the poem that is not completely clear by human motive. Thirdly, this poem is some kind of accusation of people of their prudishness and peccanancy. In An Essay on Man Pope try demonstrate the relation of humanity to the Universe and happiness, stating that everything is in the hands of God:
Man, like his Marker, faw that all was right; To Virtue, in the paths of Pleasure trod, And owned a father when he owned a God. Love all the faith, and all the allegiance then; For Nature know the right divine in Men (Pope 75)
Pope pays attention to the fact that the universe is created for the pleasure of a man and that is why we are connected to the string of universal organization. In other words one of the main ideas of the poem is to show that people are part of one whole and God is the only who rules the actions of people.
Now it is necessary to compare Popes An Essay on Man with another work that is Persian Letters written by Montesquieu. Both works has something in common, as they depicts some elements of social life and show the role of a man in this society. But unlike Pope with his godlike views, Montesquieu demonstrates more realistic scenes of social life. In his Persian Letters, the author provides the readers with the description of the Troglodyte societys way of life that reminds that of the Harem. A great number of the letters in his novel have a descriptive character and depict French life. Very often the readers are involved in the routine aspects of French society, which sometimes seem very ridiculous. Moreover, by means of his letters Montesquieu demonstrates his view of absolutism. His point of view shows that this absolutism is critical and it is not the best form of governmental power and this society needs more honorable form of government. From this book it becomes clear that one of the main ideas is to demonstrate that life in such a merciless society make people forget about real values, moral excellence and goodness. My Lord,- As we have lost the Count of L., we beg you to have the goodness to allow us to elect a president. Confusion reigns at all our meetings; and state affaires are not so thoroughly prepared& ( Montesquieu and Davidson 131). While reading we can come across some elements which make mockery of some ideas of Christian dogma. It is the demonstration of the fact that people lose their respect for God and forget about His existence at all, considering that He is of less importance than earlier. One more common thing of Persian Letters and An Essay on Man is that both authors underline the necessity of God and pay attention to the fact that people are part of the Universe, created by God. Despite the changes and development of society it is necessary to remember about God and his existence in each of us. I return then to live under your laws, and to chare your cares. Great God! What a world of things is necessary for one mans happiness!
( Montesquieu and Davidson 33). Of course, the works have the same idea that is the necessity of faith and existence of God, but both authors present it in different ways. Pope shows a respectful and humble attitude to God. In his poem people realize the real value of morality and goodness. Just the opposite way of presentation of this idea can be observed in Persian Letters. Here, Montesquieu demonstrates the moral decay of the society and peoples indifference to God. So, to my mind, the main difference between these works consists in the manner of presentation of the same idea.
So, both works are very interesting from several points of view that are in respect of the language and content and from the viewpoint of ideas and main aims, shown in them. Among the great variety of works, these ones are very good examples that prove the necessity of God and its influence upon people.
Works Cited
Montesquieu, Charles, Davidson John. Persian Letters. USA: Indo-European Publishing.com, 2010.
Pope, Alexander. An Essay on Man. New York: Oxford University Digitized, 2007.
Descartes believed that while awake, what we perceive is equal indistinctness of form as what we perceive while dreaming. This created in him a great doubt over the existence of what he perceived at any time:
At this moment it does indeed seem to me that it is with eyes awake that I am looking at this paper; that this head which I move is not asleep& But in thinking over this I remind myself that on many occasions I have in sleep been deceived by similar illusions, and in dwelling carefully on this reflection I see so manifestly that there are no certain indications by which we may clearly distinguish wakefulness from sleep& (Soccio, 258).
It is sense perception that Descartes proves here to have little faith in, as he manages to convince himself that while awake, it is in fact possible he is dreaming.
He only ever gets as far as proving the material may exist. This is a result of his proving to himself through the concept of the innate idea and of the human incapacity for perfection that God does exist. He believes that since every person has an idea of a perfect being, and yet every person is by essence imperfect, that the idea must have originated from outside of the human mind (Soccio, 262). His answer to the question of where, then, this idea originated is the next logical step of a train of thought that now must accommodate the existence of this idea. This is where he manages to convince himself that the only reasonable explanation for the perfect idea of perfection is God:
By the name of God I understand a substance that is infinite, independent, all-knowing, all-powerful, and by which I myself and everything else, if anything else does exist, has been created. Now all these characteristics are such that the more diligently I attend to them, the less do they appear capable of proceeding from me alone; hence, from what has been already saying, we must conclude that God necessarily exists (Soccio, 262).
Since God is all-powerful, it is indeed true that it is within his capacity to create existence, but Descartes can never ascribe to his senses enough confidence to believe fully in the material he perceives.
My experience tells me that all abstractions come from what we have perceived over time. My experiences tell me that as we are born, we have no innate ideas in our mindsthat we only possess a slate designed by evolution to receive the product of our perceptions in the form of ideas, concepts, beliefs, and abstractions. This is difficult. We perceive the entire world anew as we grow, and the demand on our minds to understand, classify, and create operational abstractions from these perceptions is great.
The concept of God offers a reprieve from the responsibility to draw conclusions based on what is sensed, as expressions like, Well, God works in mysterious ways, can be used to cover any sized landscape of the unascertained.
Nathaniel Branden, a present-day philosopher and psychologist, uses the argument of the infinite regress to press upon the fallaciousness of explaining existence through God (Branden, First Cause). This does not, however, appropriately fly in the face of Descartes reasoning, as he is able only to justify the existence of God to himself, and never is fully able to use that justification to explain existence, which is baffling. In leaving the existence of everything outside the personal mind in question, how is it possible that any of Descartes thoughts about anything at all contain substance? About what is he thinking? In forgetting that sense perception has informed all of his rational arguments, Descartes makes an unforgivable mistake.
This is also how he is able to circumvent reason itself in his proof of God, as any person who believes in his own sense perception will be able to understand the perfect idea of perfection is an accumulation of perceptions and desires used to create a sum of the world as it is capable of existing. This is an action committed by human beings to guide their own proactive decisions through life.
Works Cited
Soccio, Douglas J.. Archetypes of Wisdom: Seventh Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2010. 248-271.
Branden, Nathaniel. First Cause is Existence, not God. American Atheists. Web.
In the fourth mediation, Rene Descartes asserts that there is existence of perfect and Supreme Being in the universe with ability to create human beings. Based on his argument of existence of material and immaterial substances in human body, he differentiates existence of God and human beings.
Descartes argues that, God, human beings, and devil exist in a continuum of existence. God is the perfect being at one extreme end while devil exists at the other extreme end, leaving human beings on the intermediate between the two extremes of existence.
He attributes God as a perfect being and devil as a deceiver who distracts humanity from achieving perfect status of their creator. In fourth mediation, Descartes claims to have inherited everything from the perfect creator and thus he has the potential not to make any errors unless the evil one deceives him. In the light of Descartes mediation, how can human err yet God is a perfect creator and not a deceiver?
Descartes believes that human beings lie in the continuum of existence and as aforementioned, the continuum of existence differentiates God, human beings, and the devil. God is a perfect creator whose existence lies in the extreme end of perfection.
The perfect creator bestows some attributes to human beings making them lie in the intermediate continuum of existence. On the other extreme end, the devil exists in the unreal world deceiving human beings to live in the world of deception where they cannot define their identity relative to the infinite and perfect creator.
Since human beings have unequal perfectness as compared with God, they are prone to make errors. With infinite ability of existence, God created human beings with finite existence and this attribute makes them susceptible to error since the devil is able to deceive them.
Moreover, since God created human beings and gave them freedom to choose their orientation in life, Descartes believes that human error originates from such freedom. He argues that, human beings can attain perfection of God represented by reality or imperfection of the devil represented by nonexistence.
Human beings that orient towards Gods perfection achieve reality of existence and meaning of life, while those that orient towards the devil become lost in the world of deception. The world of deception is the extreme end of existence with nothingness where human beings make errors due to deception by the devil.
Although God is a perfect being, infallible creator and cannot deceive humanity to make errors, Descartes observes that human errors occur due to existence of the devil and inherent freedom accorded to humans.
The devil is in the world of nonexistence while God is in the world of reality, thus human beings have freedom to choose whether to achieve nonexistence or reality, and if they choose nonexistence, they err.
Knowledge and understanding are other attributes that differentiate God from human beings. Through infinite knowledge and understanding of existence, God created human beings with finite knowledge and understanding.
The knowledge and understanding of God is matchless because human beings have been struggling for ages to understand their existence yet God fully understands their existence.
Since Descartes failed to define his existence and attain real meaning of life, he wondered how he could understand the existence of the infinite creator. He considers it arrogance and futile for a finite mind to attempt to embrace the infinite mind of God. Thus, finite intellectual abilities of human beings make them susceptible to error.
The Euthyphro problem is a dilemma that seeks to delineate the relationship between God and piety. The dilemma is about whether something is inherently pious or dependent on Gods perception. According to Hardwig, Socrates inquires from Euthyphro whether something is pious because of Gods love or God loves it because it is pious (263).
If something is pious because God loves it, it means that piety is in the mind of God. To argue that something is pious because God loves it is absurd and ambiguous, for morality and ethics could be quite arbitrary depending on Gods perception. God could have perceived vices such as murder, rape, lies, and theft as virtues.
On the contrary, if God loves something because it is pious, it means that piety emanates from a different source other than God. To argue that God loves something because it is pious contradicts theists belief that, God is the foundation of morality and ethics. The Euthyphro dilemma can either lead people to believe that Gods perception of piety is arbitrary or that God is not the foundation of morality and ethics. Given that the Euthyphro problem is a dilemma, how is it best solved?
Solution to Euthyphro problem
According to the Cartesian solution, God is supreme and all arbitrary in that no power can limit his will. It means that Gods will is truly supreme and beyond human comprehension. Given Gods supreme will, he differentiates what is right and wrong without any limitations and restrictions in terms of ethics and morality.
Hardwig argues that, God has no boundaries for his supreme will transcends goodness and badness, and thus has the capacity to define piousness in nature (364). Since God is omnipotent, he possesses nature together with all inherent attributes and limitations. Gods attribute of the supreme will enables him to differentiate what is good and bad, for his nature reflects piousness.
Thus, Gods supreme will can either command or commend what is pious, hence resolving both problems in the dilemma. However, Cartesian solution is inadequate because it assumes that piety is an attribute of God and ethics.
Contemporary nominalists deny the existence of moral and ethical attributes in God. They claim that supposed dilemma of Euthyphro is non-existence and thus deserve no solution. Contemporary nominalists argue that Euthyphro problem need a default solution because God is sovereign, as nature does not exist. If nature does not exist, then it is meaningless to compare God with nature for the sovereignty is dominant.
According to Hardwig, nominalists assert that perception of God as having divine attributes such as goodness is extremely subjective and limiting in understanding of Gods nature (266). An attribute of goodness is so broad for anyone to classify it as one of the attributes of God. Thus, nominalists argue that God is factually and truthfully able; however, goodness is not a distinct attribute of God, but rather his nature.
Thomas Aquinas gave a Thomistic solution, for he asserts that God and goodness are one. Thomistic solution to Euthyphro problem is that piety is God and God is piety, thus an attribute of goodness is an inherent attribute of God. The Thomistic solution confirms that God is the source and foundation of morality and ethics. According to Hardwig, God has a nature reflected by his goodness; God is good and goodness is in God (267).
In this view, Aquinas resolved both dilemmas of Euthyphro problem by asserting that goodness is an attribute of God and nature. It, therefore, means that, goodness is an inherent property of nature; hence, God loves nature because of its piety. Moreover, because God and nature are one, his sovereign power makes nature good. Thus, God is good and goodness is in God as reflected in nature.
The assertion that God is good, and goodness that is in nature is God, brings out the problem of superiority between God and nature. However, such assertion proves that God is eternally powerful and unlimited because he has no boundaries. According to Augustinian solution, Euthyphro problem requires differentiation of nature and sovereignty attribute of God.
Augustinian solution involves modification of Thomistic solution, which states that, Gods nature is identical to nature as he has diverse attributes that are not identical. Hardwig asserts that, God is composite in that multiplicity and unity of his attributes determine his sovereignty over nature (267). Thus, entities of goodness that constitutes ethics and morals are subject to his power. Hence, Augustinian solution affirms that God can make something pious because he has power over nature.
Conclusion
Euthyphro problem has haunted atheists and theists because its resolution has formed the basis of worship and ethics. While atheists argue that ethics is independent of God as something is inherently good, theists argue that piety is an inherent attribute of both God and nature.
The two arguments has perpetuated Euthyphro problem and has created a complex dilemma that seems eternal. However, Cartesian, nominalists, Thomistic, and Augustinian solutions have attempted to delineate and resolve the problem. In view of these solutions, it is evident that piety is an attribute of both nature and God, and God is sovereign.
Work Cited
Hardwig, John. Socrates Conception of Piety: Teaching the Euthyphro. Teaching Philosophy 30.3 (2007): 259-268.
Does God exist? Is There Proof? Can one know that for sure God does exist? The question of Gods existence is one of controversy and hard to place an answer on. According to religion the existence of mankind is out of there being a God. Well, this could be so but science seems to differ, it has brought about different theories on the existence of everything. For millions of years there has been controversy on the existence of God, how everything came to be is based on a Supreme Being, but the question is this Supreme Being God?
Gods existence is compared to that of an artist, a watchmaker, a designer of whom when planning his art did not know if it would do well, behave in the way he intended it to behave, but had faith that it would. As an architect he sat down and came up with a design he believed would be perfect both in physical looks and behavior. Paley compares God to a watchmaker who designed a watch about man and other natural things, designed and put together a watch piece by piece. Each piece working together with the other pieces to accomplish a variety of tasks although not perfect & the purpose of the machinery, the design and the designer might be evident and in the case supposed, would be evident in whatever way we accounted for the irregularity of the movement, or whether we could account for it or not. A machine doesnt need to be perfect, to show with what design it was made: still less necessary, where the only question is whether it was made with any design at all. & (Paley 48)
By questioning the stone on the path and how it got there or who put it there? Man questions how he was created and supports this by again questioning himself how he got to where he is, had he been here forever or did he evolve with time. The watch and the watchmaker support the evolution of time through discrediting their earlier hypothesis, that the watch had been designed and put there by someone, the watchmaker and for a reason & for this reason, and for no other, namely, that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose & (Paley 47). The workmanship that God has put into his creation can never be repeated or recreated by any known human being thus the argument of the existence of a Supreme Being, God.
However every part of the design presented by the watch compliments the aspects of nature both human and animal only difference is nature is far much greater than any calculation. According to Paley, the assumption from the observation of the complicated design of the universe to the conclusion of a universe-maker who made it and deliberated its use would be unavoidable. The complexity of the watch and the watchmaker explains the intricacy of the world and how it works.
We may disapprove of Paleys argument but according to him, the objections are insufficient to disapprove the argument. With several objections to his argument, we never knew an artist capable of making a world this complicated and how the job would be accomplished; he argues that as much as we may not know who the artist is there should be no reason to believe there is none. It is also noted that the part of the universe does not work perfectly hence the designer is not evident he counters this by saying it is not a must we show that something works perfectly in order to know that there is a designer which is actually true to some extent in that a designer may design something and it is not guaranteed that it will work perfectly.
Critics of Paley argue that the world is one of many combinations and thus is a prospect event, hence the universe could be out of chance but Paley says the design could not be as a result of chance. Paley states, &Nor would any man in his senses think the existence of the watch, with its various machinery, accounted for, by being told that it was one out of possible combinations of material forms& (47) Thus, Paley claims the idea that the complexity of design in the universe could come about by chance is the notion of a fool. Many critics of this argument have countered it in many ways, in my opinion, Paleys argument is justified as nothing exists out of mere chance there is a driving force to the existence of everything and so is the universe. It is out of the design of a supreme being that the universe came to be.
Is the world considered, in general, and as it appears to us in this life, different from what a man or such a limited being would, beforehand, expect from a very powerful, wise, and benevolent deity? (Hume 50) Why God would let man suffer and he create him? Is this a question many would ask? What kind of world would one expect from an all-knowing, all-powerful and morally perfect being? A world where no one has to suffer would be perfect.
And from thence I conclude that however consistent the world may be, allowing certain suppositions and conjectures, with the ideas of such a deity, it can never afford us an inference concerning his existence. (Hume 52). The major point is that Hume declines to argue on the point that due to the vice here on earth that a supreme being is not present but in fact it is because of the sin we cannot conclude that God exists. Since there is a major presence of evil there is a likely hood he does not exist
Hume argues that there are four conditions which warranty the existence of evil and they include; The design of animal creation concerning pains and pleasures, Conducting the world by general laws (secret springs of the Universe), it is through generosity that the powers and faculties are shared amongst nature and the erroneous craftsmanship with which the ideology of nature comes from. According to these circumstances, we conclude that, with the current state of the world with its ups and downs, immorality, and decadence, it would be hard to believe it was fashioned with any decency at all or by a person with high moral standards.
According to Humes four possible conclusions concerning nature is that the world is full of righteousness and wickedness, they may be equally present or one outweighs the other depending on the situation. He rules out the first two by showing that the world has in it beautiful and ugly, pleasurable and painful features. He rules out the third with the argument against Manichaeism: the uniformity of nature shows that there are not two different wills running the world, that it is neither good nor evil. According to these four hypotheses, the limited conclusion to draw from Hume is not that he has proven that there is no God, but rather that there is no reason or no grounds on which to conclude that there is one.
In conclusion, Hume argues from a designers perspective while Paley argues from an architects point of view one looking at it from the exterior while the other gets into deeper details. Paley tells us of the existence of an all-powerful supreme being based on the design while Humes argument rules him out by saying there are no grounds on which to conclude He exists.
Works Cited
Hume, David, Why Does God Let People Suffer? from The Natural History of Religion, Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1976. Print.
Hume, David. Why Does God Let People Suffer? from The Natural History of Religion, Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1976. 50-54. Print.
Paley, William. The Teleological argument From natural Theology and the Horae Pauline, New York: American Tract Society. 1853. Print.
Paley, William. The Teleological argument From natural Theology and the Horae Pauline, New York: American Tract Society, 1853. 47-54. Print.
The ontological argument is an a priori argument that attempts to prove Gods existence based purely on reason. The argument sees no reason for attempts to prove the existence of God using empirical approaches. Instead, it seeks to prove Gods existence using essence. According to the ontological argument, the existence of God is a necessary property of God in the same way that a triangle comprises three sides. Anselm, for instance, believes that the claim of Gods non-existence is in itself self-contradictory as it implies that God is imperfect. Other philosophers who adopt the same line of argument as Anselm include Spinoza, Leibniz, Godel, Descartes, and Hegel.
The ontological argument adopts a modal technique to reasoning using the concepts of necessity, possibility and actuality. The argument assumes that supreme perfection necessitates existence. It starts by defining God as a supremely perfect being who is omnipotent, omnipresent and benevolent. In the view of ontological theorists, God must exist since existence is perfection and God is perfect.
Kants objection to the ontological argument stems from his view of the concept that a being that is conceived in the human mind, and which exists in the real world, is superior to an idea of a being that is merely conceived in the mind. Kant questions the ontological perception of existence as a predicate that necessarily applies to the concept of God in the same way that the three angles of a triangle necessarily belong to the triangle. In contrast, Kant argues that, though existence applies as a predicate in the grammatical sense, it differs from other predicates. Kant views existence as a property, unlike all ordinary properties, and argues that existence is merely the conjecture of a thing.
What Kants argument means is that when one asserts that God exists, he is not alluding that there is a God, or that he holds the property of existence. On the contrary, to say that a thing exists is to allude to the notion of that thing being typified in the universe. If Kants take on the ontological argument that existence is not a property that can be inherently possessed is correct, then we cannot compare an existent God with a non-existent God.
I believe that Kants position regarding the ontological argument (that a God that exists is essentially similar to a God that does not exist) is considerably defensible. An existent God is similar to a non-existent God, since they are both omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. This implies that the ontological claim that an existent God is greater than a God who does not exist is essentially wrong. More than anything, the ontological argument succeeds in providing the definition of God as a supremely perfect being.
Because existence is a logical predicate rather than a grammatical one, it cannot belong to the concept of God as postulated by the ontological theorists. On the contrary, existence is a predicate that merely fulfills the definition of the concept of God. What this means is that existence is not a property like the green property of a leaf that belongs to the leaf. Even if existence is to be perceived as a property, it is not the property that impacts the essence of the thing which possesses the existence. Therefore, I do not believe that the ontological argument succeeds in proving the existence of God.
The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God
The cosmological argument for the existence of God is founded on a posteriori reasoning drawn from empirical experience of the universe. Thomas Aquinas formalizes the argument in his Summa Theologica. Aquinas outlines five arguments in an attempt to prove the existence of God. Three arguments of Aquinas can be described as cosmological.
The first form of the cosmological argument for the existence of God is referred to as the first cause argument. This argument asserts that all things are caused by something else. If we go back through the causal sequence, we are likely to arrive at a first cause from which all else is caused. The cosmological philosophers argue that the supreme cause is God. It is important to note that the cosmological proof of Gods existence dismisses the idea of infinity or an infinite regression.
The second form of the ontological argument stems from the concept of contingency. This argument asserts that things can either exist or fail to exist. This argument implies that there is a possibility of a time when nothing existed, and some external being must have created what exists. Cosmological theorists call this external being God.
The third ontological argument considers the possibility of a prime mover or an unmoved mover. Aquinas states that everything in the world is in a constant state of motion. Since a thing cannot actually be and potentially be at the same time, everything that is in a state of motion must have been put in motion by a mover. Going by the trend of denying infinite regression, there must be a first mover who sets all movements in motion.
The fact that the cosmological argument applies an a posteriori system of reasoning works against as well as to the soundness of the position. Being a posteriori, the cosmological argument is easily testable using empirical data. For instance, we can test the argument by observing changes and processes in phenomena and seeking an explanation for the nature of events. The argument seems convincing since it answers the insatiable human desire to seek an explanation for natural events.
However, the knowledge acquired a posteriori cannot be absolutely trusted. Human desire to explain existence is not a reason enough to embrace the cosmological argument, since the empirical universe is filled with probabilities. What we know about the universe is obtained from the things we perceive today, rather than what existed at the time of creation. We cannot ascertain the sequence of events that took place at the time of creation to relate them with what we experience today.
Science also has the potential of working for or against the cosmological proof of Gods existence. Though science has failed to explain the happenings before the Big Bang, modern scientists have proved that there are some items, such as a particle generated by a vacuum, which can exist without being caused. This implies that God is not the only uncaused thing.
The problem raised by the ontological argument is that, even if there is a prime cause that caused the Big Bang, there is no absolute way of confirming that the cause of the Big bang is the theist God. To assume that the first cause is the theistic God requires one to take a leap of faith without logical or factual support systems.
The Allegory of the Cave
In the allegory of the cave, Plato paints a picture of prisoners held in a dark cave. The prisoners are chained around their feet and necks in a way that inhibits their movement. Plato describes a world outside the caves and a wall separating the cave and the outside world. There are shadows of people moving outside the cave which are cast on the cave walls. Since the prisoners are chained, they are unable to raise their heads to see the real people moving outside the cave and only have access to the shadows. Consequently, they believe that the shadows are real. When one of the prisoners escapes, he is not able to see anything since he is blinded by the brightness of the sun. As he stays in the outer world, the prisoner comes to realize that the outside world is the real world and that the things to which he has been accustomed are mere illusions.
The prisoner believes that it is better to live as a slave in the real world than to live like a king in the cave. When the escapee returns to the cave, the other prisoners ridicule him for leaving the world of the cave since they cannot understand a reality they are yet to experience. The prisoners warn the escapee of possible death in case he tries to release them.
The cave in the allegory signifies people who are so accustomed to what they know from empirical faculties that they do not conceive any other way of life. The shadows in the allegory signify knowledge obtained from sense perception. In his portrayal of the game played in the cave, Plato implies that those perceived as masters actually have limited knowledge of reality. The breakout prisoner in Platos allegory represents a philosopher who has moved away from reliance on sense perception and who seeks knowledge that is outside the realm of the senses. While the sun represents truth obtained through philosophical inquiry, the intellectual journey of the escaped prisoner represents the path followed by philosophers in their pursuit of wisdom and truth. The reactions of the other prisoners depict how most people are afraid of seeking philosophical truth and prefer to stay in their safe worlds.
To explain true knowledge, Plato presents his model of the Forms. Platos forms are fixed objects described as the most real objects conceivable. The world as we perceive it is just a shadow of the real Forms, which can only be grasped through rationality. For instance, the property shared by all triangles is the Form of triangularity, which is the essence of what is called a triangle. For instance, for two or more things to belong to kind X, they must share in the Form of X-ness.
Plato, being an idealist, believes that true knowledge can only be acquired through rational faculties, rather than through sense perception. Unlike physical objects, the Forms presented by Plato are unchanging and are universally knowable.
The sun in Platos allegory represents a philosophers understanding of the Forms, particularly the Form of good. A philosopher needs to appreciate the Form of good so that he can identify and comprehend the goodness available in other Forms. I agree with Plato that the knowledge we use to understand the world is inborn and cannot be acquired by sense perception. Ideas such as roundness exist in the human brain.
Hume and Kant on Synthetic a Priori Judgments
Before we can understand the concept of synthetic a priori judgment, we must define what is meant by analytic propositions and synthetic propositions. In Kants view, the terms analytic and synthetic are merely different types of judgments, which are assertions or propositions. Analytic propositions do not give us any new information about reality, but merely state that a property is encompassed by an object as part of its meaning. An example of an analytic statement is husbands are male. The concept husband contains the concept male as part of its definition.
Synthetic propositions, on the other hand, are statements whose predicating concept is not part of the definition of the subject concept. For instance, the proposition that all matter is heavy is synthetic in the sense that having weight does not form part of the definition of matter. Synthetic a priori judgments are statements that are verifiable independent of empirical experience, and which are not logically encompassed as part of the definition of the subject.
Hume builds his philosophy around an empiricist assumption that all propositions can be known through sense experience. In Humes view, causality is not founded on a priori judgments. On the contrary, Hume believes that the concept of causality is completely unfounded. He asserts that there is no foundation in experience to imply that a specific event must necessarily follow another event. He concludes that the causality cannot, therefore, be justified rationally.
What Hume implies is that there is no contradiction in rejecting the alleged necessity of causality. However, the refutation of a proposition is what demonstrates it to be necessary, especially when the refutation occasions a visible inconsistency. Since there is no inconsistency in refuting the assumed necessity of causality, such refutation is not tantamount to inconsistency. Since there is no inconsistency in refuting the necessity of causality, the causality cannot be said to be a priori.
In Humes postulation, the human mind develops a pattern when it is used to seeing an event follow another. The mind, therefore, assumes a causal relationship between the two events. Causal relationships, in Humes view, are just assumptions created by the human mind and are not certifiable by experimentation. Necessity of causal relations, therefore, lacks reasonable backing and must be psychologically defended.
I believe that Humes dismissal of the hitherto popular laws of causality and induction is what inspires Kant to try to save natural science from the implications of Humes philosophy. The reason Kant refutes Humes view on causation and induction is because Hume rejects the certainty upon which natural science is built. Kant, therefore, tries to address the problem raised by metaphysics by designing a framework of transcendental idealism that can enable people to avoid skepticism.
Kant admits that causation seems impossible, but suggests a different approach in understanding causality. Instead of looking at causality as a metaphysical process involving the organization of natural events, Kant suggests that causality should be viewed as a universally and necessarily occurring property, impressed by the human mind upon reality. This view of causality as a requirement for the intelligibility of occurrence seems more plausible than Humes dismissal of causality in its totality. Synthetic a priori propositions are, therefore, depicted as rationally validated since they serve as preconditions for comprehensibility.
I believe that Kant is right in his postulation that certain rational categories ought to typify objects of sense perception so that the wholeness of a persons experience can be consistent. These innate a priori intuitions (for instance, spatial-temporal intuitions) are assumed in any act of acquiring knowledge, and are validated as sources of all conceivable experience. To reject the innate intuition of causality causes sense perception to be incomprehensible.
Hume, Locke and Berkeley on Empiricism
Hume, Locke and Berkeley are all British empiricist philosophers who believe in weeding out any concept that portray inconsistency with empiricism and believe that knowledge must be drawn from experience. This results in skepticism about most of the things that we generally assume to know. Locke, Berkeley and Hume all adopt a technique of constructing a corpus of knowledge using modest building blocks.
Lockes philosophy seeks original and certain knowledge as well as the levels of belief. He attacks the principle of innate ideas, which asserts that human infants are born with some amount of knowledge that is not obtained from sense perception. Locke argues that the human infant is born with an empty mind, which is gradually filled with knowledge acquired through experience.
Locke also believes that the human mind resembles a mirror that only reflects objects presented to it. In his view, knowledge can be classified as sensitive, intuitive and demonstrative. Human beings often possess instinctual knowledge concerning their personal existence, sensitive knowledge about the presence of specific finite objects and demonstrative knowledge about the existence of divinity. Locke attempts to reason that human beings have knowledge of sensible things from simple ideas. However, Locke fails to support how we acquire this form of knowledge.
Locke also distinguishes between primary qualities and secondary qualities of objects. While primary qualities such as shape and motion exist in the world, secondary qualities depend on the person perceiving the object. Secondary qualities of objects include taste, smell and color as perceived by an individual.
From his arguments, Locke is depicted as an empiricist in the limited sense who believes that all materials upon which knowledge is attained are acquired through sense perception. His limitation as an empiricist stems from his acceptance of the possibility of rational, a priori knowledge of objects outside the realm of the senses.
Berkeley discards Lockes categorization of objects according to primary and secondary qualities, and asserts that all experiences fall under the secondary category. He believes that the distinction between the qualities of objects generates unwarranted skepticism. Berkeleys epistemological postulation only recognizes the existence of minds, in which God inputs ideas. He dismisses the concept of independently existing objects. However, Berkeley concedes that we have some amount of knowledge that we acquire through sense perception such as knowledge concerning Gods existence.
Berkeley believes that God is the greatest mind who controls the world of ideas. He distinguishes between the universe of God and human universe. Human beings cannot acquire knowledge about Gods universe except through fantasy.
David Hume improves on the premises proposed by Berkeley. In my view, Hume is the most consistent of all the three empiricists. Though he adopts the empirical approach to epistemology as developed by Locke, he refuses the idea of any knowledge obtained outside sensory experience. Hume asserts that though the human epistemological realm is limited to sensory experience, the possibility of any other realm (including God) is unknowable.
Hume also dismisses the concept of common sense since it is based on indefensible beliefs formed by the mind. He dismisses anything that cannot be empirically verified, including the idea of causation and the concept of induction. In terms of consistency and adherence to the empirical principle, Hume is the most commendable of the three British empiricists.
Several philosophers in history tried to present their perspectives on the concept of morals and the existence of God. They are a few of them whose documented work can be analyzed for an objective conclusion.
However, the concepts by various philosophers lead to different interpretations of morals. This paper shall compare two pairs of philosophers and their philosophies. An analysis of all philosophies will determine the best approach to morals and the concept of God.
Immanuel Kant versus John Stuart Mill
John Stuart mill presented his concept of morals in the nineteenth century. He adopted the philosophy of utilitarianism, which another man, Jeremy Bentham had presented in a different perspective in the previous century. Mill argued that good morals could be derived from assessment of the quantity of pleasure as Bentham had postulated. However, the quality of pleasure was also an important factor to him.
The quantity of pleasure can be measured by the magnitude of the experience of an individual with whom the pleasure is associated. Thus, if a person engages in an activity that brings greater pleasure than other activities, that particular activity is the most morally good.
Since this rule alone seemed to advocate for activities that sometimes featured lack of productivity and opposition to basic human principles, Mill considered quality of pleasure to define good morals. To Mill, the quality of pleasure is the number of people experiencing pleasure resulting from a certain action.
Therefore, if an activity results to the greatest pleasure for the majority of people involved, then this is the most morally correct activity. The result of any activity is paramount according to Mills philosophy. An action done for a good purpose, but has unpleasant results for the majority of people, is morally bad.
On the other hand, Immanuel Kant presented a concept of morals based on goodwill, which is unconditionally good. The purpose for which an action is done is the sole determinant of the nature of morality of the action. If an individual engages in an activity for any purpose that includes self-gratification or pleasure, the particular action is immoral.
All actions should be done for the sole reason of obligation or duty. A universally applied law with no exceptions defines duty. Thus, goodwill arises from any action undertaken to fulfill ones duties. In other words, the sense of duty is the goodwill. If an activity carried out for the sake of fulfilling ones duty results in pain for everyone involved, it remains morally correct.
According to Kant, a person should not undertake an activity for the purpose of fulfilling duty and experiencing pleasure. Consideration of pleasure and gratification makes the activity morally bad. Consequences of a morally good action do not matter. Kants philosophy is in direct opposition to the concept of morals presented by John Stuart Mill.
Aristotle versus Aquinas
Aristotle presented a moral system that depended on an ultimate goal. He postulated that humans have a definite purpose in life. Aristotle identifies this purpose as rational thinking and rational action. He also continues to rule out wealth, pleasure, and honor as possible ultimate goals of human existence.
He disqualifies pleasure since it is not unique to humans since animals can achieve it. Honor is disqualified because one cannot own it since it depends on the perceptions of other people. Furthermore, wealth is disqualified because it is not an ultimate achievement but a means to an end.
All actions that are aimed at realizing rational thinking and rational action are morally correct. They aim at achieving the ultimate goals for humans. He also asserts that all actions undertaken by humans are good since they have goal.
The only difference is that some actions are aimed at achieving ultimate good while others are aimed at achieving intermediary goals. A morally good action should be aimed at achieving ultimate human satisfaction and fulfillment. To Aristotle, achievement of the ultimate goal or good is the highest good. This is Aristotles description of happiness.
On the other hand, Thomas Aquinas acknowledges that happiness can be realized by achieving the ultimate goal. In this case, happiness is fulfillment of the human being. Fulfillment is a situation where one has no desire for anything. At this point, one achieves everything.
Thus, fulfillment occurs when one has knowledge and understanding of God. While a human being is alive, fulfillment cannot be achieved. One cannot understand God while he or she is still alive.
Aquinas postulated that fulfillment could be achieved by living ones life such that all actions are aimed at achievement of Gods will. Gods will is the ultimate destiny for all creation. This philosophy is based on Christian doctrines, and this is the major difference when it is compared to Aristotles concept of morality.
Gods will is the eternal law that is to be obeyed by all creation. Some parts of creation such as animals and plants are guided towards Gods will by God himself. This is necessary since plants and animals have no capacity to reason.
Aquinas proof of God is the tendency of all aspects of universe to act towards achievement of a certain goal. Plants and animals act in a manner that suggests that they have a definite goal. Since they have no capability to identify the ultimate goal, an intelligent being, who guides them towards that destiny, must exist.
This intelligent being is God. Humans are allowed to think and act rationally with the aim of fulfilling Gods will. God exempts them from his control of all aspects of universe. It is the duty of the humans to act according to Gods will.
The major difference between Aquinas philosophy and the concept of morals as postulated by Aristotle is that Aquinas invokes the concept of God while Aristotle does not. In addition, Aquinas claims that fulfillment occurs only after death of an individual and entry into the afterlife, while Aristotle says that fulfillment can be achieved here on earth.
Conclusion
Among all the studied philosophies of morals and existence of God, some are arguably applicable to humans in the current situation while others are not. The more applicable a philosophy is to the current situation, the more appropriate and important it is.
The utilitarian philosophy by John Stuart Mill is deficient because the amount of pleasure experienced by an individual is relative, and it depends on the perception and the state of mind of the particular person. Thus, it is difficult to measure pleasure in order to determine the moral good of an action.
Aquinas presents the concept of God, which he acknowledges that humans have not yet understood. Thus, this philosophy is not applicable to living humans to a satisfactory extent. On the other hand, the concept of rational action and thinking as the ultimate goal presented by Aristotle is subject to judgment.
Rational judgment and actions are relative to the state of mind of the individual. Finally, Kant presents the most applicable philosophy for humans to use. He avoids considering the consequences since the future is not certain regardless of human efforts to influence it. It is only reasonable that all actions are done out of goodwill. Thus, this ethical system is arguably the best.