PONTIFICIA UNIVERSITA GREGORIANA
FACOLTA DI FILOSOFIA
Tesi di Dottorato
The Concept of a Triune God in the Philosophy of Richard Swinburne
Studente: Lindo John
Matricola: 161891
Moderatore: Prof. L’uboš Rojka
Anno Accademico 2013-2014
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I: FROM ONTOLOGY TO THE CONCEPT AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
1.1. Ontological Concepts:
1.1.1. Substance
1.1.2. Thisness
1.1. 3. Necessity
1.1. 3.1. Logical Necessity
1.1.3.2. Referential Necessity
1.1.3.3. Temporal Necessity
1.1.3.4. Ontological Necessity
1.1.3.5. Physical Necessity
1.2. The Theistic Concept of God
1.2.1. Omnipresence
1.2.2. Free Creation of the Universe
1.2.3. Omnipotence
1.2. 4. Omniscience
1.2. 5. Perfect Goodness
1.2. 6. Eternity and Immutability
1.3. The Arguments for the Existence of God
1.3.1. Nature and Methods of the Arguments for the Existence of God
1.3.2. Bayes’ Theorem
…show more content…
Augustine whose treaties on Trinity are one of the noblest works in the Patristic period and St. Thomas Aquinas who develops Augustine's idea that the ‘persons’ of the Trinity are individuated by their relations. Hence this dissertation would make an analytic and comparative study of Swinburne’s concept of a Triune God based on these two great scholars of Christianity. Swinburne has been criticized by Brian Leftow, Kelly Clark, William Alston and Edward E. Feser. Philosophers like Thomas H. Mccall, William C.J.F., Jeffry E. Brower, Micheal E. Rea, David Brown, Cain James, Davis Stephen, Peter Forrest and Van Inwagen Peter provide different but complementary and alternative methods to argue for the necessary existence of a Triune God. Hence this dissertation as it progress will make a comparative and analytical study of Swinburne’s concept of Triune God in relation to the study of these scholars. Finally we conclude, highlighting the importance and future of Swinburne’s concept of Triune God in the formation of right philosophy on the
Equally as important as the previous subject, Chance in chapter five, is particularly imperative because it mentions deep theological and philosophical cases such as: case for theistic determinism as well as a case for theistic nondeterminism. The authors evenly divide the explanation of both the theists and non-theists in separate pages to distinguish the differences between them, including some examples and figures. Based on the argument between the two cases, the determinist insists and argues that God is the highest power of this universe, and therefore excludes ontological doubt. In comparison, the non-determinist believes that God has created the physical universe with a freedom to choose and a life of its
The human mind’s ability and innate desire to justify and explain the world and its phenomena has led to some of the most significant and world-altering discoveries and inventions, illustrated throughout the renaissance, enlightenment, scientific revolution, and industrial revolution. Logical pursuits comprise a significant capstone of human nature and progress. However, according to Rudolf Otto in The Idea of the Holy, these tendencies have created different dimensions of religion; the rational and non-rational, with the latter often times overlooked. The most significant difference between the rational and non-rational aspects of religion deal with their respective emphasis on reason and feeling. Rudolph Otto prioritizes the non-rational as offering a truer understanding of religion because he claims the core of all religious life revolves around experiences and feeling, not simply rational thought.
An argument from the divine hiddenness states; if there were an omniGod there would be no non-culpable disbelief, there is non-culpable disbelief, therefore there is no omniGod. I intend to look at this argument in further detail and attempt to find evidence on whether or not this argument should be accepted by focusing on the first premise and trying to see if it is accurate, whilst also discussing the plausibility of premise two. Traditional theism holds that god has three Omni qualities this is where the term omiGod derives from. When speaking about a God in this essay I will be referring to a God one who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Meaning he has power, has knowledge and goodness to the highest degree possible.
The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.
There have been an innumerable amount of arguments for the existence of God for hundreds of years. Some have become much more popular due to their merit, and their ability to stay relevant through changing times. Two arguments in particular that have been discussed for a very long time are the ontological and cosmological arguments. Each were proposed in the period of the high middle ages by members of the Roman Catholic Church. They each have been used extensively by many since their introduction.
The ontological argument states that perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails existence, and so the concept of God entails God’s existence. However, it can be argued that if God is an infinite goodness, then its contrary, evil, should not exist. Alas, there is evil in the world, and, therefore, God cannot exist. The ontological argument also seeks to demonstrate that God exists on the basis of concept alone. Pascal’s Wager attempts to justify the belief in God with an
On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it. I will begin by stating the objection the anti-theodicist gives for why it is wrong that there is a problem of evil. (<--fix) Regarding passive evil not caused by human action, the anti-theodicist claims that there is an issue with a creator, God, allowing a world to exist where evil things happen, which are not caused by human beings (180-181).
(Muncaster – Religion Lecture, 2016). Meanwhile, Christianity states there is only one god oppose to other religions that state the opposite. Due to the various amounts of moral disagreements between religions, it makes it quite difficult to believe in universal truths as everyday we encounter contradictions that exist within religions in explaining the meaning of good and
This paper will discuss the problem of evil. In the first part, I will discuss Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s atheist stance and William Lane Craig’s theist stance on the problem of evil. In the final part of this paper, I will argue that Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s argument is stronger. The Problem of Evil
The question that is asked time and time again is whether or not god exists. It is evident that people hold different beliefs. It is evident that through some of the beliefs of J.L. Mackie that it could be argued that God does not actually exist. I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist.
A lot of arguments have been known to prove or disprove the existence of God, and the Problem of Evil is one of them. The Problem of Evil argues that it is impossible to have God and evil existing in the same world. Due to ideal characteristics of God, evil should not have a chance to exist and make human suffer. In this essay, I will examine the argument for the Problem of Evil, a possible theodicy against the argument, and reply to the theodicy. First of all, to be clear, the Problem of Evil is an argument that shows that God cannot be either all- powerful, all-knowing, and/or all good.
PAPER #2 History of philosophy: Philosophy 20B Thomas Aquinas reasons that “God is one” in the Summa theologiae, part one, question eleven, article three. Using three proofs, one on “Gods simplicity,” the second on “the infinity of Gods perfection” and the last based on “the unity of the world.” The following will be Dissecting and providing explanations along with criticism. As well, what it is meant by “God is one”.
In this essay, I will set out to prove that Thomas Aquinas’ First Cause Argument does not show that God exists and the conclusion that God exists does not follow from the premises of the first cause argument. I do think that the conclusion is valid and could be sound/or has the potential to be, but the premises fail to provide the basis upon which to reach such a conclusion. Hence, I will be raising some objections to the premises and will try to disprove any counter-arguments that could be raised in its defense. This would be done by examining Aquinas’ First Cause Argument and trying to disprove it whilst countering arguments in its defense.
Baruch Spinoza’s geometric structured view on the universe, and everything in general, is beautifully broken down for present and future thinkers to ponder in his work, Ethics. Although complex at times, his method of demonstrating each discoveries of proved proposition aids readers to conceptual God-Nature. At the base of these propositions are definitions and axioms (truths) Spinoza accounts as certain truths and are critical to understanding God-Nature (substance). I will here provide an account of Spinoza’s substance monism and attribute pluralism, along with strengths and weaknesses in his arguments for this picture of reality.
St. Anselm and Descartes are known for presenting the first ontological arguments on the existence of God. The word ontological is a compound word derived from ‘ont’ which means exists or being and ‘–ology’ which means the study of. Even though Anselm and Descartes’ arguments differ slightly, they both stem from the same reasoning. Unlike the other two arguments on God’s existence (teleological and cosmological), the ontological argument does not seek to use any empirical evidence but rather concentrates on pure reason. The rationale behind this school of thought