God Is Good Morally Good Because Of God Essay

This essay examines a paper by Peter Van Inwagen, “The Argument from Evil”. Inwagen’s paper attempts to give a possible reason for why there is evil in this world. However, this essay will attempt to give reasons for why Inwagen’s reason for evil does not explain evil without compromising God’s essential quality of moral perfection. Inwagen sets the basic format for the problem of evil as thus: God has “non-negotiable” properties of omnipotence and moral perfection, there is evil in this world, if

The Euthyphro Dilemma proposes the question of whether something is good because God desires it, or God desires those things because they are good. This in turn challenges the Theism which believes that God is both morally virtuous and antecedent to good. In this essay, I will first examine the dilemma and argue that it is ultimately weak; that the two options presented are not exhaustive like the dilemma assumes. Thus, Theists do not have to make a decision between these choices. This leads to the

The Euthyphro dilemma originates from the question Socrates asks Euthyphro in Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue. He asks “Is the pious loved by the god because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?”, in simpler terms, ‘Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?’. This argument creates a huge dilemma for Divine Command theorists as their theory lies solely on the claim that morality is dependent on God’s

Divine Command Theory is the idea that morality is ingrained in the nature and command of God, and the Euthyphro Dilemma is one of the most common arguments refuting the Divine Command Theory. The argument was inspired by Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue, which contains the question “Are morally good acts willed by god because they are morally good? Or are morally good acts, morally good because they are willed by god?” (Euthyphro, 10a). This question raises large problems for the Divine Command Theory as

non-voluntarists assert that it doesn’t. David Brink and George Mavrodes argues with this theme of voluntarist and non-voluntarist. My essay will largely focus on the strengths and weakness of both voluntarists and non-voluntarists associating with Mavrodes and Brink’s idea on this issue. Voluntarists are the people who insist that it is the will or the attitude of god that determines morality and its qualities, while the non-voluntarists argue that moral

regardless of the situation or the consequences. It focuses on rules for governing what is considered to be morally right, wrong, or obligatory. The person's subjective evaluation of the situation is not of much importance” (definitions.uslegal.com). Whether what God or gods say is right or wrong challenges the idea of an objective ethic because the Euthyphro Problem goes against it. In the reading “God and Morality,” Steven M. Cahn focuses on some problems with the claim that a theological conception of

views on God. Does he exist? Does he not exist? These questions can be argued with countless theories as to why he does exist and how there is no way that he does not exist or he does not exist and there is no way that he does exist. Theists would argue that God does exist and there is good reason to think that he exists. Agnostics, Atheists, and Fideists, on the other hand would argue that there is no good reason to think that God exists. For some people they have no doubt that God exists

by asking “whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods” (Plato 219)? I will relate this question to the Divine Command Theory of morality and discuss the philosophical implications associated with each possible answer to the dilemma while demonstrating fallacies and inequalities within each. Divine Command Theory (DCT) asserts that “morality is somehow dependent upon God, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s

by a moral agent. This essay will work from the narrower definition of moral evil. The moral agent in this case is man. In the first analysis of the question of the existence of evil we will analyze the issue from a theological perspective. Theologically, the world is a cosmic battle field for supremacy co-eternal principalities; God and the Devil. God is the embodiment of good while the devil is the embodiment of evil.

Why does God let people suffer analysis? In David Hume’s essay, Why Does God Let People Suffer, he allows the reader to question if God exists in the world we live in with all the pain and suffering that goes on. Hume suggests that an all powerful God, such as the one most believe in, would not allow a world to exist with this much pain and suffering that goes on daily. Moreover, Hume basically argues that the existence of God is something that cannot be proven in the way in which scientists look