So it questions the premises on which the fact "no greater than God can be conceived" was built upon. Thus it self-contradicts the idea of non-existence of God. So God exists because, to be the perfect being he has to exist. Thus God exists and the idea of non-existence of God is ruled out
Consequently, this argument cannot possibly tell us about God’s moral nature. So, the argument for empirical theism cannot possibly work and thus, have a weakness. Nagel lays out proofs and arguments based on the relationship between God and evil, but he finds the flaws and concludes that not one argument is powerful enough to convince everyone to accept it. So, he is left with the disbelief it is conceivable to accommodate omnipotence and omnibenevolence of God with the unvarnished facts of human existence. Swinburne retaliates Nagel’s assertion that the problem of evil could not be resolved.
And even if humans could forever without God, it would simply mean that the universe popped into existence by random chance, thus having no true goal. Similar to the argument about ultimate meaning above, Craig neglects to explain why humans have no purpose, even if the universe were destroy itself at some point. Further, while Craig can argue that God creates purpose, can he argue that God, specifically the Christian God, is the sole creator of purpose? Why is the purpose that God provides for humans any more important than ones that humans provide for
he cannot just state that ‘’ God doesn’t exist’’. As rationalism demands logic and concept so he can’t even state that ‘’ God is the one moving this whole universe’’. So a rationalist will take the existence of god as logically meaningless and he will take the position of a noncognitivist. The above example does not mean that rationalist cannot have any opinion about anything. An opinion that does not contradict logic observation or evidence does not prevent from forming an indefinite opinion.
The death of Christ does not save any individual, rather it makes salvation possible for every individual. The cross is thereby limited as to its nature, becoming an incomplete work, ineffectual until completed by the free will work of man. It is the free will choice of man to accept Christ's work that completes salvation. Point 4: OBSTRUCTABLE GRACE The Arminian believes that the Holy Spirit merely woos man, but salvation rests ultimately upon that man's free will response to the Holy Spirit's persuasion. The free will of man can and does thwart and refuse the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation.
St. Thomas' Five Ways strongly prove the existence of God, but the idea of God is already there. There are philosophers that do not believe in God have the idea of God but they refuse or just do not believe in God. Some philosophers make theories and arguments to prove why God doesn't exist but what's the point? They shouldn't and wouldn't make an argument and make theories if there is no really a God existing, but no, they have theories and arguments and that is one of the proofs that God exists because there is an idea of Him, there is an argument about
Therefore, as the supreme perfection is in God, one could say that He directs worldly events to their rightful conclusion. In the book of Job, St. Thomas tried to reject the view that God is somehow not personally involved in the lives of people, that He is indifferent and people are subject to vicissitudes of nature. This is the type of argument the deists try to assert, that God, after creation, cares no more for his creatures. St. Thomas argues that by understanding that God as the universal cause, He ordained that the universe would be governed by a series of inferior or secondary causes. Hence, conclusively, providence works through a hierarchy of
The basic assumption, on which the entire argument stands, that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined can seem doubtful to a person who doubts the existence of God, for if one doubts that there is a being than which no greater can be conceived, then he may also be skeptical if any person has thoughts about the same being, whose existence itself is doubtful. The argument seems to “beg the question”. Moreover, St. Anselm’s idea of existence is not very clear. It is not very clear what a physical object is, what it means to say that a physical object exists and what it means to say that a non-physical object exists. St. Anselm’s argument is based on the superiority of an existent God over a non-existent God.
The logical argument concerning the problem of evil stems from two propositions that seem difficult to hold true at the same time: there exists an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God and there are great amounts of suffering and evil in the world. This argument concludes that since there is moral and natural evil in the world, that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God cannot exist since an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God would not create evil, or would at least seek to destroy it. To argue against this, the free-will defense is used. The free-will defense is successful as it provides a reason for moral evil, but it fails to address natural evil. However, it is still logically consistent to believe in
Here he comes to a junction where he considers the nature of the body and the soul/mind and says that he imagines the soul as an ether that runs throughout the body, but recognizes that he cannot apply qualitative observations to it that suit his sensibilities like he can for the body. By, accepting that he can never be positive about his senses of perception or that the body exists, he realizes it cannot logically be the role of a soul to sustain or nourish the body. He then looks to the notion of imagination and how one must be careful not to invent things with the imagination because they are inherently false. This means that you cannot use imagination to elucidate the true nature of the world, which he would be doing if he imagined the body and soul as anything physical without corroborating evidence. His final thoughts on the subject are that he is having difficulty completely letting go of the idea that the body is known better than the mind, but he knows that it cannot be correct because there is no rationale that allows him to know something which is doubtful such as the body, better than the mind which has survived his skepticism.