Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S1800)
    pease could someone explain whether Hare's lunatic analogy is a critisism of falsification or it supports it?
    Well in Hare's parable of the lunatic his point was that people see the world differently-bliks-which are views of the world. They are significant to everybody, because everybody has a blik, but can be neither proven nor disproven (so unfalsifiable) as shown by the lunatic not taking anything to be proof to count against his view. So it is a criticism of falsification.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Out of conscience and freewill & determinism which one is most likely to come up?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wanttobeasucess)
    Could somebody help me please!!!!
    My school don't do Philosophy and ethics at school. So i've decided to somehow teach myself this whole a level myself.
    Massive problem...
    I've only taught myself 2 topics in philosophy (Life after death + Religious language) So i was going to DEFINITELY answer those two questions and not have a choice.

    But I've realised how bad I am with life after death, like I'm seriously struggling how to write questions.

    So I'm going to try and learn Nature of God in a day...

    BUT i don't have a good text book! Does anybody have any notes on Nature of God that would help me please please please?!

    I'm stressing so much because the exam is on monday and I want to revise as well. Ahhh. So yeah any help would be much much appreciated thanks!

    Omnipotence

    Omnipotence paradoxes- Can God sneeze? Can God fail? Can God build a wall too high for him to jump? Can God sin? Can God make a square circle?

    There are four approaches to problems with omnipotence
    1. Omnipotence is logically incoherent and the belief should be abandoned
    2. Maintain that God can do all things, even those which are logically impossible
    3. Accept that God can do all logically possible things
    4. Redefine omnipotence

    Approaches to omnipotence
    • Descartes: Defined God for the purpose of his ontological argument (God has all perfections) to show that anything short of perfect would not be God. If God were less than omnipotent then theoretically we can imagine a greater being. Descartes holds that God can do even the logically impossible. Since God created the laws of logic, it is within his capability to break them.
    - God must therefore be capable of doing something evil or something wrong or something unjust.
    - Theodicies say that God could not act in any other way than which he does now; else he would deprive us of free will. Suffering is a price which must be paid for free will. But following Descartes, God should be able to suspend logic and allow us to have free will without subsequent evil. Through this the existence of evil has become something which God could change if he wanted to, but choses not too
    • Aquinas: God can do anything absolutely possible. Logically impossible such as 2+2=5 are not proper things at all, so the fact that God cannot do them does not compromise his omnipotence. “whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence because it cannot have the aspect of possibility”. The one thing that God cannot do is sin as this is inconsistent with his nature. It involves falling short of a perfect action which God cannot do. “It is because God is omnipotent that God cannot sin”.
    • A Kenny: Says we should redefine omnipotence as “a narrower omnipotence, consisting in the possession of all logically possible powers which it is possible for a being with the attributes of God to have”
    • A Plantinga: an omnipotent being may not have omnipotence as a necessary quality. He may choose to limit his powers in certain circumstances in order to preserve human freedom.
    • Peter Geach: The word ‘omnipotence’ is from ‘omnipotens’ in Latin. In the NT the work used is ‘Pantokrator’ which translates to ‘almighty’. Therefore we should use the word almighty to describe God, which can be defined as a ‘power over everything’ not ‘a power to do everything’.
    • William of Ockham: Says that before God created the world he could do anything- potentia absoluta. However on creating the world and natural laws he limited himself to only potentia ordinata. Gods chose with his divine will to restrict himself within the order he ordained until the end of time.
    • Peter Vardy: God chose to limit himself on creation of the world. This does not limit him in any significant way. He is necessarily limited- if he acted in any other way the universe would fail to function.

    Omnipotence in the Bible
    • God goes against nature and rewards the menopausal but faithful Sarah with a baby.
    • Gods power is repeatedly empathised by comparing it with humanities weakness
    • Does occasionally say that God cannot do something- “I the Lord do not change”, “it is impossible for God to lie”
    • Some Christians have considered the role of Jesus in the Bible in the light of omnipotence. Though Jesus was the son of God, he did not always display omnipotence. The Doctrine of Kenosis says that God ‘emptied himself’ of omnipotence to come to earth as man. This deliberate action shows divine choice to limit him out of love so that humans can be saved.


    Hope that helps with omnipotence
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GetCrunkedUp)
    anyone any notes on sexual ethics? would MAJORLY appreciate as my teacher never taught it to us :'( xxx
    Message me your email address, I have really good notes on it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone explain how you assess strengths and weaknesses? - do you present them and assess them or are they assessments in themselves?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've just planned the question 'Critically assess Dawkins claim that since life is no more than DNA reproducing itself there can be no life after death'.

    I got most of the main points down, but in the mark scheme there seemed to be heavy emphasis on Michael Behe. I think we did him last year (irreducible complexity and intelligent designer, link to Paley) but I didn't realise I would have to bring him into this question, seeing all the stuff we've done on the soul/identity/dualism/monism/obe's this year. Or maybe I was approaching this question from the wrong angle?

    p.s. Had the worst nightmare last night! I was 25 minutes late for the exam on monday and then only business ethics and conversion came up. All the other questions made no sense to me! Oh my god.. what is philosophy doing to me o.O
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GetCrunkedUp)
    anyone any notes on sexual ethics? would MAJORLY appreciate as my teacher never taught it to us :'( xxx
    I don't have any notes on the computer, but just be glad you're only missing notes on sexual ethics. My teacher hasn't taught us properly all year, and up until easter I had about 5 pages of notes on the whole ethics paper.

    And I wonder why I'm going to fail that part of the A level.. haha :doh:
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by xbabycakes)
    I've just planned the question 'Critically assess Dawkins claim that since life is no more than DNA reproducing itself there can be no life after death'.

    I got most of the main points down, but in the mark scheme there seemed to be heavy emphasis on Michael Behe. I think we did him last year (irreducible complexity and intelligent designer, link to Paley) but I didn't realise I would have to bring him into this question, seeing all the stuff we've done on the soul/identity/dualism/monism/obe's this year. Or maybe I was approaching this question from the wrong angle?

    p.s. Had the worst nightmare last night! I was 25 minutes late for the exam on monday and then only business ethics and conversion came up. All the other questions made no sense to me! Oh my god.. what is philosophy doing to me o.O
    Oh that's quite worrying, I would only mention intelligent design for like 3 lines :/. I think as long you as answered the question, it doesn't matter how you approach it (saw on one examiners report that conscience/free will were equally viable approaches for 1 question).

    I too am having nightmares. I can't wait for these exams to be over!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilylikeeee)
    Omnipotence

    Omnipotence paradoxes- Can God sneeze? Can God fail? Can God build a wall too high for him to jump? Can God sin? Can God make a square circle?

    There are four approaches to problems with omnipotence
    1. Omnipotence is logically incoherent and the belief should be abandoned
    2. Maintain that God can do all things, even those which are logically impossible
    3. Accept that God can do all logically possible things
    4. Redefine omnipotence

    Approaches to omnipotence
    • Descartes: Defined God for the purpose of his ontological argument (God has all perfections) to show that anything short of perfect would not be God. If God were less than omnipotent then theoretically we can imagine a greater being. Descartes holds that God can do even the logically impossible. Since God created the laws of logic, it is within his capability to break them.
    - God must therefore be capable of doing something evil or something wrong or something unjust.
    - Theodicies say that God could not act in any other way than which he does now; else he would deprive us of free will. Suffering is a price which must be paid for free will. But following Descartes, God should be able to suspend logic and allow us to have free will without subsequent evil. Through this the existence of evil has become something which God could change if he wanted to, but choses not too
    • Aquinas: God can do anything absolutely possible. Logically impossible such as 2+2=5 are not proper things at all, so the fact that God cannot do them does not compromise his omnipotence. “whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence because it cannot have the aspect of possibility”. The one thing that God cannot do is sin as this is inconsistent with his nature. It involves falling short of a perfect action which God cannot do. “It is because God is omnipotent that God cannot sin”.
    • A Kenny: Says we should redefine omnipotence as “a narrower omnipotence, consisting in the possession of all logically possible powers which it is possible for a being with the attributes of God to have”
    • A Plantinga: an omnipotent being may not have omnipotence as a necessary quality. He may choose to limit his powers in certain circumstances in order to preserve human freedom.
    • Peter Geach: The word ‘omnipotence’ is from ‘omnipotens’ in Latin. In the NT the work used is ‘Pantokrator’ which translates to ‘almighty’. Therefore we should use the word almighty to describe God, which can be defined as a ‘power over everything’ not ‘a power to do everything’.
    • William of Ockham: Says that before God created the world he could do anything- potentia absoluta. However on creating the world and natural laws he limited himself to only potentia ordinata. Gods chose with his divine will to restrict himself within the order he ordained until the end of time.
    • Peter Vardy: God chose to limit himself on creation of the world. This does not limit him in any significant way. He is necessarily limited- if he acted in any other way the universe would fail to function.

    Omnipotence in the Bible
    • God goes against nature and rewards the menopausal but faithful Sarah with a baby.
    • Gods power is repeatedly empathised by comparing it with humanities weakness
    • Does occasionally say that God cannot do something- “I the Lord do not change”, “it is impossible for God to lie”
    • Some Christians have considered the role of Jesus in the Bible in the light of omnipotence. Though Jesus was the son of God, he did not always display omnipotence. The Doctrine of Kenosis says that God ‘emptied himself’ of omnipotence to come to earth as man. This deliberate action shows divine choice to limit him out of love so that humans can be saved.


    Hope that helps with omnipotence
    Please could you post your notes on omnibenevolence, I really have nothing on it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goofy-blues)
    Can someone explain how you assess strengths and weaknesses? - do you present them and assess them or are they assessments in themselves?
    I would present one view, put down an opposite view or criticism, and make a judgement on how effective that opposite view/criticism is.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ineluctable)
    Please could you post your notes on omnibenevolence, I really have nothing on it.
    I'm really sorry but I haven't done those notes like that yet... A few pages back I very briefly outlined everything there is you need to know on it, but I haven't typed out a full version yet... What I do have, however, is some bits considering benevolence... If it helps it helps, if it doesn't then I'm sorry!

    Thinking about God’s goodness.
    • If God is perfectly good, does this mean he is unable to do wrong? Yes it should mean that God is unable to do wrong, as wrong is associated with bad, and bad is incompatible with a God that is perfectly good.
    • If he is unable to do wrong, does this mean he is still omnipotent? If you believe that omnipotence involves the ability to do literally everything, then yes the fact that God cannot do bad may compromise his omnipotence to you. However, Aquinas would argue that because God is good by nature, it is illogical to imagine a good God doing bad things, so it makes no sense even to suggest it.
    • Is God loving in the context of good and evil? The inconsistent triad is often used to illustrate why there seems to be a contradiction in the nature of God. The three elements of the triad do not seem to be able to exist together at the same time; if God is all good and all powerful, then he should neither want evil in our world and he should have the ability to remove it. This is not the case, therefore some say that we cannot say God is both good and all powerful when we see such evil and suffering in the world. Only two of the corners of the triad can exist at once.
    However, Augustine and Ireneaus both created theodicies which aim to justify the existence of God in the light of evil. Augustine says that God created a perfectly good world, and the evil only entered when humanity used its autonomy to reject God. We, as decedents of Adam, have inherited this sin and therefore deserve to be punished for it. He goes further to say that God is actually good, as he sent Jesus Christ to give us another chance at redemption. Ireneaus said that humanity was created with free will and the aim of becoming good like God- we were created in his image but should aim to be in his likeness. However, to be able to see and aim towards good we must also know of evil. Ireneaus says that eventually with practise we will find ourselves in Gods likeness and evil will be overcome. Therefore Ireneaus and Augustine would disagree that the existence of evil is evidence against a loving God.
    • Is God good if hell exists? If God was good, surely he would not invent a place full of such suffering and pure evil. It seems to go against his very nature to use his omnipotence to create such a place. Though humans are sinful, surely he should see that sometimes it is not our fault; we may be influenced, if not fully determined, into doing things which are not fully our own autonomous choice. Therefore it seems harsh, unfair and extremely unforgiving of God to damn people to hell because of less than perfect actions of earth. The love of God could be compared to that of a parent; unconditional. In the case of a parent, though they may want to see justice brought to a child who has misbehaved, it is hard to imagine one who would wish to see their child eternally damned with no hope of redemption.
    However, some might argue that part of God as a fair creator is that he hands out just rewards for actions. Heaven is a reward for humans who do good actions and follow the ways that God expects, equally hell must exist for humans who do not do good actions and have no followed the teachings God has made. People have said that God doesn’t send anyone to hell; people have to send themselves there through rejection of Jesus Christ.
    • Is God cruel in terms of his expectations of human beings? Some people would say that God has set us up to fail. We are imperfect beings in an imperfect world, though it seems that God expects us all to act perfectly, regardless of the fact that it goes against our natural tendencies most of the time. In the Old Testament especially, it seems that God is particularly punishing and perhaps unfair. For example, he turned Lots wife into stone just because she turned to look back, something which could be attributed to pure human nature.
    In contrast, some may say that God really does not have many unreasonable expectations of us. All he really asks from us is acceptance, love, loyalty and willingness to try to do good. These ideas are more supported by the New Testament with ideas such as the ‘Golden Rule’ which says that the main thing God wants humanity to show is love. People who support this idea say that God gave us rules such as the 10 commandments purely to help us be better people, but God does actually appreciate that being in the image of God is not enough to make us perfect.
    • Should a good God have give people free will to choose whatever actions they want to take? Or should God have given people free will to choose whatever actions they want to take? Some say that God did have to give us free will. This is in accordance with the theodicies which say that we had to be given free will, so that we could make our own free choice to choose God (good) and reject sin. If we were not given autonomy, then none of our actions would hold any value; be they good are bad actions. We would be no more than robots. Though God could have made us to automatically love and follow him, this love means nothing compared to love which free beings choose to give him.
    Some people may of course disagree and feel that a God good would have wanted to make humans who were as perfect as he was. Then all humans would be happy and would automatically love God, so he should be happy too. Surely it would be nicer for God to look down on the world he has created and see pure love and happiness, instead of the sin and hatred that we find in our reality.
    • Is God’s love constant or does it waver? Gods love may be comparable to that of a parents love for their child. It is (normally!) unconditional and unwavering through good times and bad. In comparison to this, much of the other love in the world seems to be more contingent; ‘I love you because...” The Bible says that “God is love”. For most Christians, God’s love is not based on emotion or feeling, but because he is love itself, he cannot do anything other than feel love.
    However, there seems to be examples in the Bible which doesn’t agree with this. As Dawkins points out; “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” Many of these descriptions do not fit a God who’s love is unwavering.
    • Can God’s love be diminished by hurt and rejection? If Gods love was constant, it would not waver. However, it does not always seem that Gods love is constant. Sometimes he seems so angry at humans he does not love them very much at all. For example, when God floods the world saving only one family. It seems he has ‘given up’ on the majority of humanity, hardly a loving thing to do, if this is the same sin that we inherited for actions that were not our own choice (such is the teachings of original sin).
    • Does God’s love apply to all? Some people may say that God’s love does not seem to apply to everyone. There are examples where God seems to be favoritist; like when he makes the Jews his chosen people above the rest of the world. Some may say this shows God loving the Jews, though not necessarily the rest of humanity. However, theoretically, if “God is love”, then he should love everyone equally. However, when Christ died on the cross it was not for only some people, but for all of humanity. God accepts repentance from everyone.







    The Euthyphro Dilemma and The Goodness of God

    ‘Does God command X because it is good, or is X good because God commands it?’

    The Euthyphro dilemma was first raised by Plato and is so named due to being in the Euthyphro script. It raises serious concerns for the nature of God.

    1) GOD COMMANDS X BECAUSE IT IS GOOD
    If God is merely reporting goodness then it seems goodness exists independently from God, and God had to discover what good things are in much the same way humans have. If there are moral standards independent of Gods will, then there is something over which God is not sovereign and God is bound by morality rather than the establisher of morality. This also questions his omnipotence; perhaps an omnipotent God should be able to make an evil act good. Thus Gods liberty is limited; perhaps God was forced to command in accordance with these intrinsic morals, even if he wished he could have changed them. Furthermore, if there are moral standards independent of God, then morality would retain its authority even if God did not exist. God is no longer a ‘law giver’ but a ‘law transmitter’ who plays no vital role in the foundations of morality.

    This raises problems for God goodness because it shows that all goodness does not have its origin in God. God did not give good things their goodness.

    2) X IS GOOD BECAUSE GOD COMMANDS IT
    If a thing is good simply because God says it is good (the divine command theory), then it seems that God could say that anything is good and it then would be. There are no moral standards other than Gods will: without Gods commands, nothing would be right or wrong. God could just have easily chosen acts such as murder and rape to be good, and said that generosity and compassion are sinful acts. This morality is based on Gods arbitrary decelerations, and means thing we perceive as good are not really intrinsically good. This arbitrariness also jeopardized Gods status as a wise and rational being, as he is not acting for good reasons, just on whimsical feelings. Moral contingency is also found through this view; no action has it moral status necessarily- any right action could have easily been wrong and could become wrong at some point in the future.

    In terms of the goodness of God, it seems that God is either arbitrary and commanding things as good or bad based purely on whim. Further more, if all goodness is a matter of Gods will, then what shall become of Gods goodness? Since the standards of moral goodness are ser by divine commands, to say that God is morally good is just to say that he obeys his own commands- God practices what he preaches. C. S. Lewis raised the issue; “if good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of God himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those of the ‘righteous Lord.’” That is to say the divine command theory is incapable of explaining the difference between God and an all powerful demon.

    3) THE CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
    Christians reject that morality is an arbitrary function of Gods power, and that God is responsible to any higher law. An objective standard exists, internal to God, and thus morality is grounded in the immutable character of God who is perfectly good. God is both supremely sovereign and good. Therefore Gods nature itself can serve as the standard of goodness, and God can base his declarations of goodness of himself. God’s nature is unchangeable and wholly good- thus, his will is not arbitrary and his declarations are always true. What a good God commands will always be good.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    What are the predictions to what will come up in Philosophy and Ethics?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilylikeeee)
    I'm really sorry but I haven't done those notes like that yet... A few pages back I very briefly outlined everything there is you need to know on it, but I haven't typed out a full version yet... What I do have, however, is some bits considering benevolence... If it helps it helps, if it doesn't then I'm sorry!

    Thinking about God’s goodness.
    • If God is perfectly good, does this mean he is unable to do wrong? Yes it should mean that God is unable to do wrong, as wrong is associated with bad, and bad is incompatible with a God that is perfectly good.
    • If he is unable to do wrong, does this mean he is still omnipotent? If you believe that omnipotence involves the ability to do literally everything, then yes the fact that God cannot do bad may compromise his omnipotence to you. However, Aquinas would argue that because God is good by nature, it is illogical to imagine a good God doing bad things, so it makes no sense even to suggest it.
    • Is God loving in the context of good and evil? The inconsistent triad is often used to illustrate why there seems to be a contradiction in the nature of God. The three elements of the triad do not seem to be able to exist together at the same time; if God is all good and all powerful, then he should neither want evil in our world and he should have the ability to remove it. This is not the case, therefore some say that we cannot say God is both good and all powerful when we see such evil and suffering in the world. Only two of the corners of the triad can exist at once.
    However, Augustine and Ireneaus both created theodicies which aim to justify the existence of God in the light of evil. Augustine says that God created a perfectly good world, and the evil only entered when humanity used its autonomy to reject God. We, as decedents of Adam, have inherited this sin and therefore deserve to be punished for it. He goes further to say that God is actually good, as he sent Jesus Christ to give us another chance at redemption. Ireneaus said that humanity was created with free will and the aim of becoming good like God- we were created in his image but should aim to be in his likeness. However, to be able to see and aim towards good we must also know of evil. Ireneaus says that eventually with practise we will find ourselves in Gods likeness and evil will be overcome. Therefore Ireneaus and Augustine would disagree that the existence of evil is evidence against a loving God.
    • Is God good if hell exists? If God was good, surely he would not invent a place full of such suffering and pure evil. It seems to go against his very nature to use his omnipotence to create such a place. Though humans are sinful, surely he should see that sometimes it is not our fault; we may be influenced, if not fully determined, into doing things which are not fully our own autonomous choice. Therefore it seems harsh, unfair and extremely unforgiving of God to damn people to hell because of less than perfect actions of earth. The love of God could be compared to that of a parent; unconditional. In the case of a parent, though they may want to see justice brought to a child who has misbehaved, it is hard to imagine one who would wish to see their child eternally damned with no hope of redemption.
    However, some might argue that part of God as a fair creator is that he hands out just rewards for actions. Heaven is a reward for humans who do good actions and follow the ways that God expects, equally hell must exist for humans who do not do good actions and have no followed the teachings God has made. People have said that God doesn’t send anyone to hell; people have to send themselves there through rejection of Jesus Christ.
    • Is God cruel in terms of his expectations of human beings? Some people would say that God has set us up to fail. We are imperfect beings in an imperfect world, though it seems that God expects us all to act perfectly, regardless of the fact that it goes against our natural tendencies most of the time. In the Old Testament especially, it seems that God is particularly punishing and perhaps unfair. For example, he turned Lots wife into stone just because she turned to look back, something which could be attributed to pure human nature.
    In contrast, some may say that God really does not have many unreasonable expectations of us. All he really asks from us is acceptance, love, loyalty and willingness to try to do good. These ideas are more supported by the New Testament with ideas such as the ‘Golden Rule’ which says that the main thing God wants humanity to show is love. People who support this idea say that God gave us rules such as the 10 commandments purely to help us be better people, but God does actually appreciate that being in the image of God is not enough to make us perfect.
    • Should a good God have give people free will to choose whatever actions they want to take? Or should God have given people free will to choose whatever actions they want to take? Some say that God did have to give us free will. This is in accordance with the theodicies which say that we had to be given free will, so that we could make our own free choice to choose God (good) and reject sin. If we were not given autonomy, then none of our actions would hold any value; be they good are bad actions. We would be no more than robots. Though God could have made us to automatically love and follow him, this love means nothing compared to love which free beings choose to give him.
    Some people may of course disagree and feel that a God good would have wanted to make humans who were as perfect as he was. Then all humans would be happy and would automatically love God, so he should be happy too. Surely it would be nicer for God to look down on the world he has created and see pure love and happiness, instead of the sin and hatred that we find in our reality.
    • Is God’s love constant or does it waver? Gods love may be comparable to that of a parents love for their child. It is (normally!) unconditional and unwavering through good times and bad. In comparison to this, much of the other love in the world seems to be more contingent; ‘I love you because...” The Bible says that “God is love”. For most Christians, God’s love is not based on emotion or feeling, but because he is love itself, he cannot do anything other than feel love.
    However, there seems to be examples in the Bible which doesn’t agree with this. As Dawkins points out; “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” Many of these descriptions do not fit a God who’s love is unwavering.
    • Can God’s love be diminished by hurt and rejection? If Gods love was constant, it would not waver. However, it does not always seem that Gods love is constant. Sometimes he seems so angry at humans he does not love them very much at all. For example, when God floods the world saving only one family. It seems he has ‘given up’ on the majority of humanity, hardly a loving thing to do, if this is the same sin that we inherited for actions that were not our own choice (such is the teachings of original sin).
    • Does God’s love apply to all? Some people may say that God’s love does not seem to apply to everyone. There are examples where God seems to be favoritist; like when he makes the Jews his chosen people above the rest of the world. Some may say this shows God loving the Jews, though not necessarily the rest of humanity. However, theoretically, if “God is love”, then he should love everyone equally. However, when Christ died on the cross it was not for only some people, but for all of humanity. God accepts repentance from everyone.







    The Euthyphro Dilemma and The Goodness of God

    ‘Does God command X because it is good, or is X good because God commands it?’

    The Euthyphro dilemma was first raised by Plato and is so named due to being in the Euthyphro script. It raises serious concerns for the nature of God.

    1) GOD COMMANDS X BECAUSE IT IS GOOD
    If God is merely reporting goodness then it seems goodness exists independently from God, and God had to discover what good things are in much the same way humans have. If there are moral standards independent of Gods will, then there is something over which God is not sovereign and God is bound by morality rather than the establisher of morality. This also questions his omnipotence; perhaps an omnipotent God should be able to make an evil act good. Thus Gods liberty is limited; perhaps God was forced to command in accordance with these intrinsic morals, even if he wished he could have changed them. Furthermore, if there are moral standards independent of God, then morality would retain its authority even if God did not exist. God is no longer a ‘law giver’ but a ‘law transmitter’ who plays no vital role in the foundations of morality.

    This raises problems for God goodness because it shows that all goodness does not have its origin in God. God did not give good things their goodness.

    2) X IS GOOD BECAUSE GOD COMMANDS IT
    If a thing is good simply because God says it is good (the divine command theory), then it seems that God could say that anything is good and it then would be. There are no moral standards other than Gods will: without Gods commands, nothing would be right or wrong. God could just have easily chosen acts such as murder and rape to be good, and said that generosity and compassion are sinful acts. This morality is based on Gods arbitrary decelerations, and means thing we perceive as good are not really intrinsically good. This arbitrariness also jeopardized Gods status as a wise and rational being, as he is not acting for good reasons, just on whimsical feelings. Moral contingency is also found through this view; no action has it moral status necessarily- any right action could have easily been wrong and could become wrong at some point in the future.

    In terms of the goodness of God, it seems that God is either arbitrary and commanding things as good or bad based purely on whim. Further more, if all goodness is a matter of Gods will, then what shall become of Gods goodness? Since the standards of moral goodness are ser by divine commands, to say that God is morally good is just to say that he obeys his own commands- God practices what he preaches. C. S. Lewis raised the issue; “if good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of God himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those of the ‘righteous Lord.’” That is to say the divine command theory is incapable of explaining the difference between God and an all powerful demon.

    3) THE CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
    Christians reject that morality is an arbitrary function of Gods power, and that God is responsible to any higher law. An objective standard exists, internal to God, and thus morality is grounded in the immutable character of God who is perfectly good. God is both supremely sovereign and good. Therefore Gods nature itself can serve as the standard of goodness, and God can base his declarations of goodness of himself. God’s nature is unchangeable and wholly good- thus, his will is not arbitrary and his declarations are always true. What a good God commands will always be good.
    Thank you very much!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Need help from you lovely's!
    Anyone got any notes on to criticise Aristotle's view on the soul? My notes are really weak on it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    Oh that's quite worrying, I would only mention intelligent design for like 3 lines :/. I think as long you as answered the question, it doesn't matter how you approach it (saw on one examiners report that conscience/free will were equally viable approaches for 1 question).

    I too am having nightmares. I can't wait for these exams to be over!
    At least you'd mention him! Completely forgot he existed up until half an hour ago.. haha. Atleast I realised this before the exam, rather than after.

    Oh I know, 3 days and counting!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Haha thank you, I had already been on that, do you think that's enough to answer a question on it?

    xxx
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone exlain perscriptivism in deatail for me please? Does it think EL is meaningful or meaningless?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilylikeeee)
    Omnipotence

    Omnipotence paradoxes- Can God sneeze? Can God fail? Can God build a wall too high for him to jump? Can God sin? Can God make a square circle?

    There are four approaches to problems with omnipotence
    1. Omnipotence is logically incoherent and the belief should be abandoned
    2. Maintain that God can do all things, even those which are logically impossible
    3. Accept that God can do all logically possible things
    4. Redefine omnipotence

    Approaches to omnipotence
    • Descartes: Defined God for the purpose of his ontological argument (God has all perfections) to show that anything short of perfect would not be God. If God were less than omnipotent then theoretically we can imagine a greater being. Descartes holds that God can do even the logically impossible. Since God created the laws of logic, it is within his capability to break them.
    - God must therefore be capable of doing something evil or something wrong or something unjust.
    - Theodicies say that God could not act in any other way than which he does now; else he would deprive us of free will. Suffering is a price which must be paid for free will. But following Descartes, God should be able to suspend logic and allow us to have free will without subsequent evil. Through this the existence of evil has become something which God could change if he wanted to, but choses not too
    • Aquinas: God can do anything absolutely possible. Logically impossible such as 2+2=5 are not proper things at all, so the fact that God cannot do them does not compromise his omnipotence. “whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence because it cannot have the aspect of possibility”. The one thing that God cannot do is sin as this is inconsistent with his nature. It involves falling short of a perfect action which God cannot do. “It is because God is omnipotent that God cannot sin”.
    • A Kenny: Says we should redefine omnipotence as “a narrower omnipotence, consisting in the possession of all logically possible powers which it is possible for a being with the attributes of God to have”
    • A Plantinga: an omnipotent being may not have omnipotence as a necessary quality. He may choose to limit his powers in certain circumstances in order to preserve human freedom.
    • Peter Geach: The word ‘omnipotence’ is from ‘omnipotens’ in Latin. In the NT the work used is ‘Pantokrator’ which translates to ‘almighty’. Therefore we should use the word almighty to describe God, which can be defined as a ‘power over everything’ not ‘a power to do everything’.
    • William of Ockham: Says that before God created the world he could do anything- potentia absoluta. However on creating the world and natural laws he limited himself to only potentia ordinata. Gods chose with his divine will to restrict himself within the order he ordained until the end of time.
    • Peter Vardy: God chose to limit himself on creation of the world. This does not limit him in any significant way. He is necessarily limited- if he acted in any other way the universe would fail to function.

    Omnipotence in the Bible
    • God goes against nature and rewards the menopausal but faithful Sarah with a baby.
    • Gods power is repeatedly empathised by comparing it with humanities weakness
    • Does occasionally say that God cannot do something- “I the Lord do not change”, “it is impossible for God to lie”
    • Some Christians have considered the role of Jesus in the Bible in the light of omnipotence. Though Jesus was the son of God, he did not always display omnipotence. The Doctrine of Kenosis says that God ‘emptied himself’ of omnipotence to come to earth as man. This deliberate action shows divine choice to limit him out of love so that humans can be saved.


    Hope that helps with omnipotence
    Thank You So So much.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GetCrunkedUp)
    Haha thank you, I had already been on that, do you think that's enough to answer a question on it?

    xxx
    It is very likely that any sexual ethics questions will involve ethical approaches (see past questions here: http://sites.google.com/site/farrows...ays/y13-ethics) so it is worth revising those approaches and criticisms of them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anybody know anything about the Problem of Evil with life after death ??!
    Its not the text book! I'm baffed!
    Any help much appreciated !!
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: May 23, 2012
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.