This method is supportive of Descartes’s will to emphasis on doubt and question anything that can be doubted. Thus, he demonstrates the presence of God through a chain of consequences ‘Causal proof’. Because of the law of conservation of matter, the cause must equal the effect, if we have an idea of God than this idea is the effect and God is the cause (Gaarder, 2003). Therefore, the idea we have of God is an innate idea that we did not produce ourselves. Accordingly, he expresses that as a result of his innate thoughts of God, it only makes sense that it be God who "is the reason for this thought".
The argument that indirectly tries to prove that man was made in God’s own image does the contrary. Humans of course would rather be called a product of intelligent design than a result of divine instinct. As far as determining his origin, man generally prefers intelligence to instinct, growth, or
The ability to reinforce the existence of God and the ability to refute arguments of His nonexistence is becoming increasingly necessary in the life of Christian, which is why one has to arm themselves with different argument for the existence of Christ, and two of the best justifications for the existence of God are probable argument and cosmological arguments because they intersect with reasoning found in scientific observation and psychological
In a way, it might even be seen as a sort of relativist perspective because the gods could develop their own beliefs and commands and change them accordingly and they must always be right. This is what makes Socrates’ claim so essential, it calls into question the Divine Command Theory and questions the real origin of morality. Human civilizations have been going to the gods for their guidance since the beginning of time, but Socrates’ brings insight that stumps the “smart” Euthyphro. In a certain way, this one question can poke a hole in an individual’s view and traditions of religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is the spring board for disciplines and studies into religious apologetics, because this question that might seem innocuous at first proves to be incredibly powerful.
It is interesting how Nash presents this. Nash eloquently presents this book in a way that it is easy to understand these terms. He says that there are three answers to the question “Is Jesus the Only Savior?” Either your answer is “yes period”, “yes but”, or “no.” Nash sets the stage of his argument by pointed out these three beliefs. However, the one of focus in the paper would be the belief of pluralism. In this book Nash highlighted the inconsistency of the pluralistic argument, while he maintains a Christian worldview.
When encountered early in the book, the implication of this religious imagery is not fully apparent. However, once viewed in the context of the later Christian allusions found in A Clockwork Orange, it becomes clear that this is the proclamation of Burgess’ intent in this novel. Burgess views humanity as an organic thing, full of great potential to please God, and he sees the implication of conditioning, specifically, or more generally anything that would sap the essential ability of humans to choose, as a detriment to God’s
According to a philosopher, Pascal Wenger, one 's belief about God existing is based on self-interest. He argues that it is in our interest to believe that God exists and hence from his point of view it is rational for us human beings to do so. Furthermore, he adds that if we believe in God 's existence and he truly exists then, we are bound to receive a reward in heaven but if he doesn 't exist we won 't have lost a thing. Finally, he concludes those who do not believe in God 's existence; then he exists they are bound to receive an endless penalty in heaven. Also, other arguments about the existence of God include the ontological perspective which tries to argue from the point of abstract reasoning.
We asked about how disrupting the being and becoming distinction translates theologically. How would this effect the distinction between creator and creature? Further, the valuation of materiality and connectedness seems to have implications for the doctrine of God. One of us wondered: “to what extent are we repeating the history of Trinitarian thought?” Another raised suspicion: “does this commit you to Whiteheadian doctrine of God becoming in the world?” A more general refection provoked was how we think about the relationship between Christianity and Platonism. Is there a necessary relationship?
Reality is existence, and imagining something up is nonexistent. In order for us to have understanding and think up our representation of the divine God there must be existence of him. How else would we be able to imagine a perfect holy being that is above all? If there is understanding of this being, the knowledge to imaging this being up had to come from somewhere, and this is how Saint Anselm tries to prove Gods existence.
There is a twisted reflection of God because of the fall, but still we reflect God. “Made in God’s image”. We are all the offspring of God We think - God thinks, we have Emotion-God has emotion, we can discern right and Wrong-God can. 4. Ontological Argument (Anselm of Canterbury proposed this argument and later Rene Descartes deployed a similar argument) Idea of God - Everyone has an idea of God.
The conclusion of the Euthyphro dilemma is that divine command theory is false. The dilemma got its name from Euthyphro, one of Plato’s early dialogues. In Euthyphro, Socrates and the eponymous Euthyphro, a priest, discuss the essence of goodness. While the work reaches no definitive conclusions about the nature of goodness, it raises many challenges to divine command theory. In what follows, I will highlight some important and/or interesting problems raised by the Euthyphro dilemma and try to show how it refutes divine command theory.
The customary contentions for the presence of God have been reasonably completely scrutinized by rationalists. Be that as it may, the scholar can, in the event that he wishes, acknowledge this feedback. He can concede that no discerning confirmation of God 's presence is conceivable. Also, he can in any case hold all that is key to his position, by holding that God 's presence is known in some other, non-judicious way. I think, notwithstanding, that an all the more telling feedback can be made by method for the convention issue of shrewdness.
This is its biggest weakness, in order for it to succeed someone has to presuppose that God exists. Another weakness is based on whether or not existence is an actual property of something like its size, weight, or color. If existence isn’t considered a property then it fails, but if it is then it succeeds. Then there is the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument looks to the world to prove God’s existence rather than pure definitions.
First being theism which states that god does exist. Secondly, there is atheism which states that god does not exist. Lastly, there is agnosticism which states that it’s unclear that god does or does not exist. You would think if you don’t have enough evidence for god’s existence, it would be a good idea to go with the argument of agnosticism. However, there is sufficient evidence to prove that argument unsound.