God might have attached an immaterial thinking substance to certain material bodies, he is allowing that, as a result of divine intervention, material structures might think after all. That is, he has abandoned any claim to know at first hand that material structures simply could not be conscious. If some material structures could be conscious, how can we know a priori that material structures cannot of themselves give rise to consciousness. If, instead of supposing that material structures themselves sometimes think, we assumed that there are immaterial substances, minds, or souls, associated with our bodies, we should have to say that matter somehow acts upon these immaterial things (in perception) (Moreland and Nielssen 72). For most of believers, God is a unity, the main source that allows the construction and experience of religion. The concept of God can be explained as a static one evolving during centuries. It is important to note that God is the common feature of human's personality, so many philosophers identify the causes and events that push people to be ethical, especially if their actions will affect another person. In this case, the inner nature and morals of people is closely connected with their believes which prove the exultance of God (Moreland and Nielssen 82).
And this perfect cause of the universe is God. What is more, without God morality would be impossible (Moreland and Nielssen 32). There must be a Lawgiver (God) who originates and stands by moral law. A universal moral law cannot exist accidentally. There must be a basis behind it, which is God. According to this view, every person is born with an inherent understanding of right and wrong. Everyone, for example, understands that murdering an innocent person is wrong. Everyone realizes that helping a drowning person is right. Where did this internal understanding of right and wrong come from I'm convinced that this understanding comes from God. He was the one to put it into the hearts of every person (Moreland and Nielssen 87).
There is no reason why a non-personal principle of creative value should be encumbered with omniscience. Nevertheless, Leslie is right to confront this problem. For if goodness, ethical equality is the sole creative principle and the only explanation why there is any world at all, we can indeed ask, Whence, then, is evil It would obviously be less satisfactory, because less simple, to admit that value is, even in principle, only a partial explanation of what there is, that there is also an element of the sheer unexplained brute fact, of things just happening to be there; for the recognition of such unexplained brute facts was the rejected alternative to the hypothesis that ethical norms are creative (Leslie 43). Leslie's answer to the problem of evil is, in effect, to argue that there may well be no unabsorbed evils, when we take account of the value of lives that involve real choices against a background of discoverable causal regularities--whether those choices are causally