In general, we don’t know for sure that something as God or any higher power of such has ever lived or existed, but it gives people hope and therefore religious knowledge systems still incorporate and effectively uses suspension of disbelief. Willing suspension of disbelief is still used in religion since this is the only way that mankind believes in something and does not lose hope or faith. The idea of suspension of disbelief is that you don’t use any kind of rationalization to explain the impossible, so what if you could explain religious belief with logic? Can you rationalize faith, although by definition it is not rational? According to John Cottingham, who is an English philosopher, argues there is absolutely nothing to rationalize since religion is “all about one's feeling of absolute dependence and commitment” ("Religious Faith [...]”).
Even though I do not believe in the Divine Command Theory, I still believe in God, and that he is the creator of all things. I think that God’s goodness is rooted in nature, and it is in his nature to do good. However, I do not think this alone can prove that the Divine Command Theory is true. The Divine Command Theory implies that we know what God approves or disapproves of, but really no one knows for sure. So, we must rely on our own understanding
However, I cannot completely agree with either point of view concerning God’s power. According to Hick’s theory God is, was, and always will be all powerful, but the Process-Relational Theory suggests that God though a very powerful being, He is not all powerful. Both suggest that evil exists either because of God’s awesome power or due to the lack of that power. As a Christian it is easy to agree with John Hick’s arguments that God is all knowing and all good but can the belief that God is all powerful hold its own in a world full of evil. If he is all good why would he not use his bounty of power to rid the world of evil?
Asking the invisible for more is rude. It might seem also wrong for many of us that are religious to call God “invisible” in this writing. Only because he is not invisible he “lives through the church and our hearts.” Even if there was a God, why do we tend to ask him for more. Have we grown lazy enough that we ask the invisible for the impossible? To change things that are ruled by nature.
Pascal’s wager states that a person cannot come to know God by reason alone so it is best that a person lives as if God does exist, because a person would not lose anything if God did not exist. Pascal’s wager says it is safer to bet that God does exist and to live a life like God does exist. He also makes the point that even if one does not have faith they could obtain it by ‘faking it’ or acting like they have faith. Pascal’s argument is not convincing to me for this reason alone. There is several times where his wager does not align with scripture.
The process of such rituals implies that I can do some action to receive a special gift from God. ‘“Sacrament” is also inappropriate since it carries too much baggage from the history of Christian thought.” (p. 116) 2. According to Cross, what is a sacrament? According to Cross, a sacrament is “occasions for God’s presence to be in our midst as well as opportunities for believers to express their devotion and faith to God.” They are a actions performed by humans in response to God’s grace. They are “…rich with symbolic meaning and promise of God’s manifest presence.
He makes a mention about how the Romanists are the sole interpreters of the bible. He strongly disagrees with this saying that “it is a wicked base invention, for which they cannot adduce title of evidence in support”. This clearly shows Luther’s view on this. He believes that interpreting the bible should be for everyone rather than for a select few who could be infected with the devil. It also gives the impression that the clergy are interpreting the bible in a way that benefits themselves and the church rather than focusing on the spiritual needs of the greater
This, he says is more important than knowing the facts about God or performing rituals. This is one reason Kierkegaard supports the knight of infinite resignation over that of faith. The knight of faith is also seen as something comfortable but Kierkegaard doesn’t think we should feel so comfortable. The knight of faith seems to jump into the infinite and come back and seems to have no faith, which Kierkegaard is uneasy with. The knight of faith wants the material world to be the way he wants it and remains focused on the fact that he believes in God but is getting it all back.
Descartes most famous phrase “I think, therefore I am” shows that we cannot be deceived of our own existence as we cannot think if we exist if we do not in fact exist. Descartes’ second part of the hypothesis for the Evil Demon argument refutes the idea of there being such a being with the assumption of a God. With the assumption of a God who is merciful and kind the chance of an evil being deceiving and tricking us would be highly unlikely to happen. Therefore, we can be very sure that we are not being deceived by an evil demon, only for those who believe in God. Other people who do not would rather not believe in the existence of God than believe the uncertainty of everything else (Descartes first mediation, page 202).
I. SYNTHESIS At the mention of “Divine Revelation”, my thoughts on it before were very narrow and simple. Back then, I would have mostly thought of revelations that occurred during the time when Jesus Christ was still alive. I had this expectation that the revelations would be mostly relating to the prophecies that we know from the bible, or what the church is constantly saying is the message of God. However, after getting to know the lesson more in detail and better, I realized that my perception of the topic was wrong, as “Divine Revelation” is much broader and more meaningful than we realized. Furthermore, I able to understand better how “Divine Revelation” or simply God’s revelation is still very much present in modern times today.
However, this was not in the interest of society converting everyone to their own beliefs, but a statement in good faith to maintain peace among the people. Religious freedom, when exercised, goes way beyond that of a political nature. Society is more inclined to do the right thing and further the mission of the church when they truly believe it in
The Lord needs a yielded vessel that will do the will of the Father and not their agenda. There is no need for you to prove yourself the Lord will validate. God has us in the business of winning souls. In fact, a study of the scriptures and researchers, citing them apparently at random and for various or a superficial intention is necessarily superficial, since time prevents you from testing them properly. Scriptural rambling can bring confusion to younger Christians because they are not equipped yet to follow.
It does not however say that an individual in office may have no religious beliefs at all. The statements I have put in bold are those I believe can be explained by this, a persons’ personal belief. Though all these statements can be depicted one way or another depending on your own beliefs, my opinion lays that statements like that of the Declaration of Independence mentioning God further more shows that the founding fathers believed and practiced Christianity but just because they did, they were not imposing it on everyone else that would be affected by an official document like the Constitution. The fact that founding fathers quoted the bible again was a personal choice that does not need much more explanation. The word God in inaugural speech whether it be the first one or 2012 was a personal choice In this country traditions play a significant role, and I think this in part is the reason for
Reason can adequately attain certain conclusions, but it should not be treated separately from faith because faith can help prevent mishaps in judgment. As Pope John Paul II outlines in Fides Et Ratio, during the Fall “man was in no position to discern and decide for himself what was good and what was evil,” (Paul II 14). Man needed God to assist him in making the right choice but instead acted prideful and tried to use solely reason. Sin enables reasoning to become distorted, which ultimately impairs the truth when man attempts to avert himself from God. When this occurs, man ultimately becomes “the fool” (Paul II 12) by attempting to avoid the assistance God can provide.
Decision are not made in advance. Therefore, free will is possible under an omniscient God. Response to Objections While Lewis made a valid argument in defense of Theological Fatalism, he has failed to recognize that predestination, in any form, still warrants that one’s actions will be predetermined. Opponents of Lewis’ argument would argue that even though god exists in an timeless realm, we still can not act out of free will. The argument is as follows: God timelessly knows that I will do C. If god timelessly knows that I will do C,then C is now-necessary.