This eventually leads to a fatalistic view that concludes no human actions are voluntary if one is believing in God. Although, my second proposition is not supported Pike’s essay, but it is inspired by Boethius’ theory of human free will, which based on the condition necessity. Combine with the idea of the multiverse, this allows human to have free while still within the boundary of God’s omniscience. We are living in an age of constant changes, and new hypothesis will develop as we gain more knowledge on the ultimate reality.
Believing that god is the one who makes us have ideas, without concrete proof would be reckless. This is why I believe that if god`s existence cannot be proven there shouldn’t be any arguments stating that this spirit is the one who controls everything. Lastly, since it`s impossible to prove god`s existence, Berkeley`s response fails to skepticism even if he`s completely right when he says that everything is an idea.
The only other solution is for God to not create the world at all. He argues that for any world God could create, which included freedom, there is at least one action on which Man would go wrong, or else he could not create any world at all. This phenomenon he calls transworld depravity. Therefore, for God to create a world in which humans had moral freedom, the existence of both Good and Evil is necessary.
Philo claims that it is inconceivable that the planet was made by a being both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. That God is the maker and He is wholly moral, he can't be answerable for the presence of evil in the planet. Evil, indeed, does not exist as an unrelated substance: it is noticeably a nonappearance of great similarly as difficulty seeing is the nonattendance of sight. This unlucky deficiency emerges through the activities of people who hold unrestrained choice. The God of Christian belief in higher powers might be guarded against the above charge in light of the fact that people must have free will in mind to be human.
Moreover, God could have made other worlds; though, the extent to which he could make these worlds is limited. For example, God could not create a world in which evil prospers because He cares about goodness, benevolence etc., but the point remains that God could have created things differently; God could have created other worlds. Spinoza, however, strongly disagrees with this position. In 1p33s2 of the Ethics, Spinoza puts forth a couple of arguments that separate him from the tradition. Spinoza’s best argument against the traditional view in this scholium is that “All things depend on God’s power.
Thus, arguments one, two, four and five conclude that God exists because the world requires him as an explanation. Meanwhile, argument three concludes that God could not not exist. Yet, still some individuals insist that the proofs are wrong. The first proof, The Way of Motion, is about how things change in the world and how things are put into motion. Since you cannot infinitely regress backwards, there must be a first unmoved mover.
However, Evans and Manis suggest there are beings in this world that are unaware of how they came to exist. These beings are often contingent on another being. Th... ... middle of paper ... ...were made to always do what is right then free will would truly not exist. It is evident that McCloskey’s arguments in an attempt to disprove the existence of God lacks evidence. He disputes the existence of God based on a lack of undisputable evidence, but he provides no undisputable evidence to counter this existence.
This premise is trying to compare god the being who can complete any task, to a normal person. This conflicts directly with Aquinas definition of omnipotence because it is logically possible for a person, so why isn’t it for god. I still think that his definition is correct because it is not logical to compare a person to an Omnipotence being. I think another argument could be made here that god would be doing more than carving a stone out of the earth but perhaps creating one. The paradox of the stone is an odd thing, if god wanted to keep his omnipotence he could just not create the stone therefore not be challenged.
But there is no moral guilt for God. It is falsely assumed that because the creatures are not allowed to take someone else's life, then is not acceptable to do the same for God. God gives life and only he has the right to take it (Job 1:21), but people do not give life, and they have no right to take it away. Same way, the statement that natural evil cannot be explained through free will of humans can also be argued. From a biblical point of view, the free choice of Adam and Eve con... ... middle of paper ... ...er virtues.
On the other side, John Locke, an empiricist, who believes that all ideas come from experience, raise an objection on Descartes premises of the innate ideas because Locke does not believe in such thing as ideas, which are built in us naturally and the reason of the of putting the right ideas is God for he is perfect. First of all, Descartes as a rationalist believes that substances or objects are in a scale from less real to more real, which he started by putting the modes, which are anything that requires something else to exists as the least real thing, and up on top of that the finite substance which give the property its mode to exist, and he goes on by putting the most real thing is the infinite substance, which is the more powerful and that everything depend on it to exist. Descartes also things that cause has to have as much reality as its effect, for example, the idea of the cause of hotness it should come from a property which is heated. Also, Descartes think that he himself is a finite substance that suppose to depend on something else to exist as he mentioned in the medit... ... middle of paper ... ...objects. In the final analysis, Descartes, the rationalist, tried to proof the existence of the material and external objects around him by pointing at the existences of God, the innate ideas, and God is not a deceiver so he will not try to deceive him by giving Descartes the wrong information about all the external objects around him.