However, his claims can be refuted on the basis that, when one says that “no greater God can be conceived”, then one would only be talking about God. The word God is what you call a being that is above all understanding. Secondly, the lack of complete understanding of a God that is greater than any other is the basis of Anselm’s argument. In other words, one needs not understand how it is that no other greater God exists, because it is not possible to do that. It is the concept of understanding that such a being exists that is important.
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?
The Ontological Argument is defined as the argument that God, being described as the most great or perfect, must exist, since a God who exists is greater than a God who does not (Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100250688). It belongs to the Philosophy of Religions and not Theology; there is a difference between Philosophy of Religion and Theology, even though they both take God and religion as their subject. Theology starts with assuming that God exists and aids in figuring out what follows or it sometimes solves philosophical problems that might arise from the belief in God. Theology is slightly more strict and they have limits to their premises, one of those limits is not believing in God. Another
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 [...]”). In an interview, he says: “It is problematic if you think the only model for reasonable belief is a scientifically based on impartial assessment from evidence.
And, if one believes that god is omnipotent, then this question is irrelevant because this question is a contradiction. Because, if gods omnipotent then there is no stone too heavy for him to lift. Thus, depending upon what one believes about god, the answer to this paradox is different. All in all, the paradox of the stone is an interesting though experiment in debating gods omnipotence. The roots to Aquinas were key in the creation of this argument.
Hume and Kierkegaard are responding to philosophical mindset which held belief in the existence of God as something that can be rationally proven. In Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments, both philosophers take issue with the a posteriori and a priori proof that have been used by philosophers to prove God’s existence. While their critiques of these arguments have much in common, the conclusions they draw from their analysis could not be more different—Hume ultimately denies God’s existence while Kierkegaard upholds it. While a full investigation into Hume’s argument against God’s existence and Kierkegaard’s argument for the necessity of the leap of faith, we can see how their critiques of these rational
Does the Ontological Argument successfully show that God exists? Anselm 's ontological argument is a philosophical argument which aims to prove God 's existence. The ontological argument is an argument for God’s existence based on reason alone. According to this argument, there is no need to go out looking for physical evidence of God’s existence; we can work out that he exists just by thinking about it. (Anon., 2004) Anselm’s argument is a reductio argument, it seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that an absurd result would follow from its denial.
Firstly, it is formidable since he is able to give the atheist the most charitable assumption that “God exists only in the understanding”, and then go on to show its contradiction and reduce it to absurdity. Furthermore, the defense for Anselm’s argument is a strong one. With the infinity argument, Anselm can solidify his claim that his argument is an exclusive argument for “sui generis” entities. Of course, skeptics would have us agree that two such entities may not prove that all such entities can seamlessly pass Anselm’s argument. However, with the infinity argument, we are one step closer to understanding how Anselm’s argument truly works.
This tries to prove God’s existence by saying that all natural things were created for a purpose by an intelligent designer; this is much like Paley’s Teleological Argument. This argument does not work because it does not prove that the intelligent designer of natural things must be God. Overall, Aquinas’s argument fails to fulfil its only purpose: prove that God exists. If an argument cannot prove that God is all knowing, all good, and all powerful, then it does not prove the existence of a god at all. Another main reason why this argument and many other arguments for God’s existence does not work is because of the problem of evil.
Firstly, the possibility of the idea originating from nothing is ruled out for obvious reasons, as Nolan and Nelson highlight how ‘nothing’ does not posses the ability to cause, as it does not contain any properties and the effect cannot have more reality than the cause (Nolan and Nelson, 2006:108). Furthermore, as humankind are imperfect beings, Nolan and Nelson state that as we are finite beings we cannot conjure the idea of a more perfect and infinite being ourselves (Nolan and Nelson, 1996:110). Therefore, Descartes argues that this leaves only the possibility that an infinite being could cause the idea of an infinite being to exist innately within the mind of the finite cogito, like ‘the mark of a craftsmen stamped on his work’ (Descartes, 1996:35). Moreover, Descartes further believes that it would be impossible to exist with the idea of God, if God did not exist, and that this God could not be one that
Karl Rahner, regarded as one of the most important theologians of the twentieth century, presents a succinct yet influential treatise attempting to provide a systematic reflection on the doctrine of the Trinity, out of a response to the Neo-Scholasticism of the twentieth century, which produced a “Unitarian” Christology and theology of grace. Summary After laying the foundation for his grandaxiom, the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity, in part two, Rahner attempts to provide a systematic exposition of the teachings of the magisterium regarding the Trinitarian doctrine. Having recognized the recondite nature of the Trinity, Rahner evaluates conciliar terms, such as ‘person,’ ‘substance,’
For the objections only prove that it is difficult to assume God’s non-existence. In that argument, theists are not able to refute the argument of the atheists they are merely able to evade it. For an evasion of an argument will never make for a valid argument.
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 difficult of evil exists undoubtedly the leading problem to trust in the being of God. The dispute from cruel or problem of evil is the dispute that an omnipotent, omniscient, and flawlessly moral God would not let someone or definite types of evil or grief to happen. Only individuals who have faith that there exists a Deity who is both all-powerful and wholly good are bothered by the problem of evil. The issue of evil grips all five of the subsequent propositions are: First, God is entirely moral; He wishes the supreme on behalf of everybody in the universe, Second, God is all-powerful; it means that He can do what is logically impossible, God can do all He wants, Third, Evil subsists; “Evil” signifies whichever deficiency in the world,