As the Apostle John said in 1 John 2:22-23 NASB “Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.” I cannot agree with any of the aspects of process theology and the only thing I can agree with is its critics who claim process theology is non-Christian
The argument states the existence of evil is impossible under the attributes of God. It is evident evil exists but it is not clear whether God exists. The purpose of Mackie’s and Plantinga’s argument is to prove whether or not God exist based on the existence of evil. Mackie does not agree on the existence of God and uses philosophy to prove it. He believes that there is no rational evidence that
The infamous new Atheists have taken this form of argumentation and use it to argue for the merits of atheism over theism. This is a development that seems to be rooted in this new militant form of atheism, and goes something like this: If atheism is true, then I will have freedom and intellectual honesty, and it won’t matter if I’m not a Theist, because God doesn’t exist. If a good god does turn out to exist, he will forgive me. On the other hand if I’m a Christian, I must be sexually and morally constrained, and believe in a God I find to be morally abhorrent. The cost of being wrong is losing my whole life.
The third author; William Dever, argues that the occurrence in Israel history never occurred and that data do not support the existence of state Israel. He does argues of the explanation of “Israel existence and nature.” Dever believes that Bible is idealist, viewing what the elite wants you to believe and worship, thus creating a god. Oswalt defends the Bible history with a serious of question that will leave the reader to take a second look at what this book written by Dever, he completely destroy his theology on Israel
JL Mackie was persuasive in his argument by showing that belief in an almighty God is not rational. He proves this by posing the problem of evil. According to JL Mackie, if God exists and is omniscient, omnipotent, and good then evil would not exist. However, evil exists in this world, sometimes in the form of undeserved suffering (diseases that affect humans, earthquakes, famines ...) and others perpetrated by man (murders, wars ...). If God exists and has the capability to be powerful, good, omniscient and omnipotent, why would he let evil be perpetrated?
On Being an Atheist The existence of God has been a huge issue for many years. The main McCloskey's issue with the idea of God is the presence of many evils in the world. McCloskey implies that the "proofs" of the existence of God cannot establish a factual evidence which supports the existing argument of whether there is God or not. Some proofs explaining the existence of God should be dismissed because they are not valid. Such proofs include teleological and ontological.
He says, “Enslavement is horribly atheistical.” meaning enslavement is unGodly, and that it is something that an atheist, who believes in no God, would believe is right. Garrison uses religious views to make his point clear. He states, “Abolitionism, which I advocate is as absolute as his throne.” He is saying that if you are a Christian, that abolitionism is
Is honesty the best policy even if the truth disturbs many people? Kurt Vonnegut bluntly relays his opinion on the war between science and religion and other controversial topics concerning life though his novel, Cat’s Cradle. Consequently, it was banned by the Ohio School Board in 1972 “without stating an official reason”(“Taboo Titles”). The debunking of the validity of religious and scientific beliefs, and the harsh truth embedded within his work has earned Vonnegut a spot on the controversial “Banned Books” list. He addresses the ongoing war between science and religion by blatantly stating that both are faulty.
The following reasons will explain why the crucible is injustice. The crucible portrays injustice by how Danforth is not following court that is ruled by religion. Evidence that shows that it's injustice is when Reverend Hale asks Elizabeth "Do you know your commandments Elizabeth? "(Miller 496). Hale is asking her this to test
H.J. McCloskey’s article “On Being an Atheist” he argues the existence of God and we should abandoned all “proofs” of this idea. In approaching the question of God’s existence, we cannot prove God or that other things exist. Proof is a certainty and without a shadow of doubt. However, it is possible I could be wrong, but I don’t believe I am.