If you agree that the faculty of judgment comes from God, and that God is a non-deceiver then you would also believe that the end would be impossible for the faculty of judgment to to be wrong. Is it even possible for anything from God not be the truth or
The one weakness of Anslem argument is that he didn 't give enough evidences for God existence in reality. Another weakness posed by St Aquinas, as Anselm states God is "that which nothing greater can be conceived" then to understand God in this way is to be equal to him, which Anselm is human and cannot be equal to God. The one strength of Aquinas argument: Aquinas was influential philosopher concerning the different people who have different concepts of God, and how they could understand and accept his argument. Aquinas also presented five ways as evidences to argue the existence of God. One of the weaknesses of the Aquinas argument is that Aquinas contradicts himself when he rejects the possibility that the universe is unlimited.
The concept of inclusivity for a christ-centered theist is, unsupported because God wont take nonbelievers into heaven. Christ-centered theists believe the law of non contradiction is true because, God wont let there be two things true at the same time. This one is rational because morality is based on something and not subjective.
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.
He discusses the possibility of this occurring through natural theology, or contemplation, but decides that this is not possible due to the “ignorance and stupidity of the people” (sec. 6, pg. 29, para 1). He continues on to refute other possible explanations, before concluding that it occurs as a natural result of the flattery system; humans place one God above all others and say that he is omnipresent and infinite (sec. 6, pg.
Some people do not understand how this work because it is outside of their experience Some people can understand this when they have the relationship with God themselves. Just like Abraham He does not have any idea that God will save Isaac and give Isaac a higher purpose to save the community that is where faith comes in people life. Learn how to trust faith and God. Sometime there is not a ration explanation how things work in the world people need to trust . People have to use language to tell people how they fell and thought and need .
However, he questions the actions of a God that he feels he doesn’t know, a God that is still both omnipotent, omniscient, but that lacks the qualities that the Jesuit has been told to nurture in the hopes of becoming closer to his Lord. The Jesuit struggles to reconcile these two opposite images, one of the God he knows, and the other a God whose actions he finds
What if we believe that God is something else? Then Pascal’s argument falls flat because then we don’t know if the payoff will be worth it or not since we do not know what the payoff will be, due to our lack of understanding who God
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.
There is a problem in the world that should be obvious to us, but manages to be hard to see. It is that we do not want to see because if we see we cannot pretend that everything is okay. What is darkness? What is light? This passage shows us that the light is the Son of God.
St. Iraneaus debated that Gnostics are those who are spiritual with growing knowledge of God, lack the true faith because Gnostics deny the “Incarnation and bodily Resurrection of Christ,” [p. 182]. Iraneus described in p. 4 of Selections that believers should mirror Christ 's life. The purpose of establishing an uncomplicated simplicity of just believing in one God while understanding that redemption of the entire human race is only through Jesus Christ. [ p. 13].St. Iraneaus debated that Gnostics are those who are spiritual with growing knowledge of God, lack the true faith because Gnostics deny the “Incarnation and bodily Resurrection of Christ,” [p. 182].
How can I believe, how can anyone believe in this God of Mercy? (77)." Elie was losing his faith in God. He was suffering and he was wondering where God was at this time as he was suffering. If God truly did exist, then why would He let this happen?
But he notes that this need not convince anyone that there is no reason for believing in God:the theologian can, if he wishes, accept this criticism. He can admit that no rational proof of God’s existence is possible. And he can still retain all that is essential to his position, by holding that God’s existence is known in some other, non-rational way.”Mackie’s aim is to show that philosophy is not only capable of criticizing arguments for God’s existence, but also showing that God does not exist, thus closing off the position of the theologian
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.
The ontological argument is one of the three main arguments for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. This argument is designed to appeal to rational rather than non-rational reasons for the existence of God. Rational reasoning can be identified through the use of reason, logic, argumentation, and our shared observations of the world, whereas non-rational reasoning is characterized by subjective religious experience. However, the ontological argument does not appeal to the logic consisting of our shared observations of the world because it focuses on the reflection of our own idea of God, therefore validating the cosmological argument to be a priori since none of it’s premises require empirical support. St. Anselm of Canterbury provided a renowned version of the cosmological argument around 1080 AD that establishes the existence of God by reflecting on our idea of Him.