Blaise Pascal adopts a one of a kind strategy in noting the endless question of God 's presence. Rather than belligerence for or against His reality like all those before him, Pascal strays from the generally accepted way to go and measures the merits against the inconveniences of the decision to accept. His contention, be that as it may, is jumbling, and welcomes the question; can faith in God really be diminished to a bet? Moreover, does this talk on confidence in God fit a bet 's status? Utilizing the thought of interminability for instance, Pascal reminds his gathering of people that there exist thoughts which are outside human ability to understand; however this does not deny their reality.
In studying this section, Grudem discusses his theory of the Doctrine of God with discussing the character of God. Grudem begins by stating that there are several methods of categorizing the attributes of God. However, the most common attributes are better known as incommunicable and communicable attributes. The incommunicable attributes of God are "those attributes that God does not communicate to others", and the communicable attributes of God are "those attributes that God does communicate or share with others" (Grudem p. 186). An incommunicable attribute of God would be His unchangeableness; whereas, a communicable attribute of God would be love, knowledge and mercy.
Edwards makes the claim that typically showing too high of an affection would speak to it being false, however with love things are a little more complicated. “But will any Christian say, men ought not to love God and Jesus Christ in a high degree” (150)? Next, he looks at the effects of affections on the body (one’s actions), the way one speaks about their faith, the strength of one’s spirit, and finally on one’s knowledge of scripture. Through these, he asserts that none of these filters, so to speak, serve as a way to effectively judge one’s true faith (152-153). In the third section, Edwards turns his focus to the best ways to distinguish between true and false affections.
Faith does not reduce the autonomy of reason, but reminds people who is at work, causing the events that we attempt to break down with reason: God of Israel. He then goes on to explain how Jesus’ death on the cross holds so much weight in the teachings of philosophers and how it stumps many who ponder its details. “Man cannot grasp how death could be the source of life and love; yet to reveal the mystery of his saving plan God has chosen precisely that which reason considers "foolishness" and a "scandal" (John Paul pg. 21). The main justification that Paul provides is the truth about the deeper meaning of the Cross of Christ.
Obedience is essential because, “all right knowledge of God is born of obedience” and obedience must be included in love. According to Calvin, piety is, “reverence joined with love of God which the knowledge of his benefits induces.” And, he goes on to say, pious men do not think up ideas about God and what he is or is not, they just listen to what God tells them. This is a kind of knowledge of God. From this, Calvin starts to get into his argument about the knowledge of God concerning the Seed of Religion. “Men of sound judgment will always be sure that a sense of divinity which can never be effaced is engraved upon men 's minds.” In this as well is Calvin’s argument for humans having an innate sense of divinity which goes along with the seed of religion.
These three philosophers present their own arguments about the existence of God. One philosopher Thomas Aquinas present the better argument in one’s opinion because he argues that everything that has breath must have a creator and this is the only thing that makes sense of what these philosophers say. God does exist not for what these three philosophers say but God exists for the faith of what the Bible says. Anselm’s argues that he is supposed to seek God with his whole heart, but how can he seek someone he has not seen. Anselm argument is about God’s existence, comparing God’s, existence of a painting.
Saint Anselm: Saint Anselm was a brilliant philosopher who brought thought-provoking ideas to the world. His mission was to provide evidence that proved the existence of God. The way in which he found the ability to prove the existence of God was through conjuring possible reasons for existence but then finding contradictions within those reasons that only lead back to the solution that there is only one higher power. 1.One of Anselm’s ideas was called Monologian. This was based on the idea that all good things come from something of ultimate goodness.
Rahner began his thinking of God by focusing on human beings, our questioning nature and our drive for truth. Humans are driven to transcendence. “God is a holy mystery so radically different from the world that human beings can never form an adequate idea” (Johnson, pg. 38). Rahner believes there is only one mystery in Christian faith which is God as a self-giving love.
This paper will argue that existential philosophy provides a useful model for understanding Christian faith. Specifically, I will show how two major concepts in existentialism – the ontological priority of existence and the love of fate – suggest helpful ways of thinking about faith. I’ll begin by outlining these two concepts as they are expressed by existentialist thinkers. Then I will choose one theology of faith as a starting point, and examine how it intersects with existentialism. The goal is to use existentialist philosophy to form a more complete and practicable view of faith.
Argument for the existence of god is being proposed in several ways. Some based on science while some are about personal experience and some on philosophical arguments such as ontological arguments, first cause arguments, arguments based on deign, moral arguments. Each of these support conception. Ontological argument say that if you inculcate the idea of god , we can see him . There is a saying that “Nothing comes from Nothing but something comes from something”.
To some degree, I believe that Descartes did confirm God’s existence, when one takes into consideration of the arguments that were presented and the limitations that were placed on the Meditator. For instance, when the Meditator was attempting to prove God’s existence by demonstrating that God does not depend on the existence of a substance, considering that God holds perfection in sovereignty and knowledge, which the idea of God could not be invented by the imagination or brought from the material world. This type of analysis was centered on the Meditator’s intellectual judgement, so that the Meditator could attain a clear and distinct idea of God by relying on the mind alone, since the Meditator understands that adventitious and factitious
Descartes gave a few arguments that God exists and is real. Desocrates believed our idea of God is that God is a perfect being, he believed he is more perfect to exist than not to exist. Desocrates also believed that God is a infinite being. Descartes idea would be that God gave us this idea to type this paragraph about him so he must be real. When he thinks negative of an idea or thought he wonders if an evil demon plotted those thoughts.
To do this he identifies different types of ideas that he possesses “among these ideas, some appear to me to be innate, some adventitious, and others to be formed [or invented] by myself” (Meditation 3). Innate ideas are inherent in his intellect, and because of this he concludes them to be true. He holds that his conception of God, as a being who possesses all possible perfections, is an innate idea that has been implanted into his mind by his creator. To further justify this claim, he provides his version of the ontological argument, proving that the existence of a God who possesses all perfections is self-evident. In conclusion Descartes rids himself of the notion that God is deceptive by identifying the idea of God as innate, and then proceeding to prove the existence of that God through an ontological
Whereas groups with a scared basis turn to a supreme being for guidance or answers. Contradicting the superior Christian scriptural view that human nature was essentially corrupt and in need of divine guidance and salvation from itself, Kant and Jefferson enforced the positive view that accounted humans as centrally rational and completely able to be educated. Knowledge resulting in departure, open analysis was viewed as providing not only the basis for understanding the natural world but also for the understanding of human themselves, including their political and social selves. Furthermore, humans came to be kept exemplifying the capability as embodying the ability to consider and value the common good or morality and to provide for the social and political preparations that serve for the better of human condition. The concept of self-government had to be continued by the