"If God does not exist, then everything is permissible." This is the view held by famous thinkers like Dostoevsky and Nietzsche: smarter men than us. In fact, there was often a tension between the humanist movement and traditionalists who feared that religion was the moral glue that held together the fabric of society. Even some humanists, such as Voltaire, thought it would be best if the "masses" would be slowly brought to the knowledge that there was no God, after other moral foundations had been set.
Of course, no more atheistic people turn into sociopaths than religious people. Many people take that as evidence that the worries of the 19th century were unfounded. Other people point to Hitler's use of Nietzsche's philosophy as rhetoric during the Nazi movement as evidence that these ideas are indeed dangerous. I think both sides miss the point.
Societal pressures and internal consciences keep the majority of us from committing crimes. At the same time, we each make mistakes in our daily life due to pride or selfishness. Religion does not effectively keep us from committing evil, nor does atheism effectively cause it.
The real question is this: "Does the existence of morality depend on the existence of (a) God?" This is the question that both Dostoevsky and Nietzsche asked, and they both ended up answering "yes". In Dostoevsky's case, that meant that God must exist. In Nietzsche's case, that meant morality must not exist. We must ask ourselves this important question from a purely epistemological perspective and not an empirical one. If we answer yes like these two, we must then ask whether we believe more in the existence of morality or the non-existence of God.
This threefold classification can be arrived at by the following lineof thought. An advocate of the argument from evil is claiming, in thefirst place, that there are facts about the evils in the world thatmake it prima facie unreasonable to believe in the existenceof God, and, in the second place, that the situation is not alteredwhen those facts are conjoined with all the other things that one isjustified in believing, both inferentially and non-inferentially, sothat belief in the existence of God is also unreasonable relativeto the total evidence available, together with all relevant basisstates. In responding to the argument from evil, then, one mightchallenge either of these claims. That is to say, one might grant, atleast for the sake of argument, that there are facts about evil that,other things being equal, render belief in God unreasonable, but thenargue that when those considerations are embedded within one’s totalepistemic situation, belief in the existence of God can be seen to bereasonable, all things considered. Alternatively, one might defend themore radical thesis that there are no facts about evil in the worldthat make it even prima facie unreasonable to believe in theexistence of God.
Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God by Peter …
The alternative course is to grant that there are facts aboutintrinsically undesirable states of the world that make it primafacie unreasonable to believe that God exists, but then to arguethat belief in the existence of God is not unreasonable, all thingsconsidered. This response may take, however, two slightly differentforms. One possibility is the offering of a completetheodicy. As I shall use that term, this involves thethesis that, for every actual evil found in the world, one candescribe some state of affairs that it is reasonable to believeexists, and which is such that, if it exists, will provide anomnipotent and omniscient being with a morally sufficient reason forallowing the evil in question.
The term “God” is used with a wide variety of different meanings
If god is almighty there are several qualities he must have. They are as follows: I have refuted this argument myself. See foran explanation Neccesary a god is a being that is worth worshipping, so if there is no being worthworshipping there cannot be a god. Not any of the existing religions can provide such a god. How do we know if there areno undiscovered beings worthy our submission? Well if there is a being that has eitherfailed or not tried to communicate with us that being is not worth worshipping either, sothe ontological evidence against god holds, even without complete knowledge of the world. There is a test, based on the ontological evidence against god, that you can do to trythe existence of god. Pray, and ask god to provide you with a clear proof for hisexistence within a week. After that week, if you have got a proof that god exists, send methe evidence. If not, there are only three reasons I can think of that are plausible: (1)God does not exist, (2) God does not want to or (3) God can't give youthis evidence. Because of the ontological evidence, alternative (2) and (3) are not worthyour worship and thus they equal alternative (1). So if you get no response there is nogod. What do we mean by existence? The very definition for existence is that a thing is saidto exist if it relates in some way to some other thing. That is, things exist in relationto each other. For us, that means that something is part of our system ('The knownworld'). God is defined to be infinite, in which case it is not possible for there to beanything other than god because "infinite" is all-inclusive. But if there isnothing other than god then either god cannot be said to exist for the reason justexplained, or god is the known world, in which case, by definition, god is not a god. wasformulated by William of Occam (1285-1349) and says: or in english: . It is a principle for scientific labour whichmeans that one should use a simple explanation with a few explanatory premises before amore complex one.
Why Science Cannot Address the Existence of God
It is important to recognize that there are at least two distinct interpretations that could be offered for Ivan’s claim that if God does not exist, then everything is permissible. First, it could be read to mean that without God we would have no motivation to be ethical. Unless we had the motivation of divine judgment or divine approbation, then we would not really care about being ethical because we would not face any ultimate accounting for our actions, neither on earth nor in heaven.