When looking through the logic of philosophers from the medieval period of Philosophy and their unconvincing logic, we first look at Anselm. Anselm wanted to prove God existed, Anselm argues that you can prove the existence of God through metaphysic metaphysical analysis, for example: Think of the most perfect being possible. If you can picture the most perfect being in your mind, then it is possible that it exists only in your mind as an example of Plato’s Theory of Forms. Anselm’s argument fails because anything you can imagine can come popping out of your mind if you wished it to be so, If anyone were to sit down and imagine the perfect God or the perfect island, would that perfect God or island even exist outside of their mind, would that
Saint Anselm delivered the strongest ontological argument for God through conceptual analysis. The ontological argument is a deductive argument that is an analytical statement that can be constructed by definition(s). He argues that one thing is necessary to exist, and that thing is God. God is a necessary being. His argument is known as reductio ad absurdum, which demonstrates through a contradiction that God exists.
Aquinas’ First Cause argument is one of a number of Cosmological arguments that aim to prove the existence of God. A Cosmological argument is based on observation and entails the insistence of Gods necessary existence in order to explain the existence of the Universe. The Fist Cause Argument uses the cause and effect of material objects going back into the past in order to find the first cause. It comes to the conclusion of the first cause being an uncaused cause which is said to be the traditional Christian, all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful, God. There are a number of arguments and objections to the First Cause but I will argue the success of the objection ‘God is More’ objection which objects to the conclusion of the argument that states that the Christian version of God ,with its attached attributes, exists.
Abstract Within Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity, Entwistle inquires if psychology and theology can be unified. Entwistle suggest a sufficient technique of integration albeit the Allies model, and this paper will outline the strengths and restraints of this model as well as how Methods of Knowing and the Two Book Concept further discover the effectiveness of the model. The justification of this paper is to instruct its reader on different subjects of the Allies model concerning the integration of theology and psychology. In line with this, the advantages and drawbacks are shown as well as how this model deals with diverse concepts, and how it considers the relationship between Christianity and psychology. In every
Response to Objections Even if one resonate with Swinburne in his concept of a trinune God, some questions needs to be clarified such as whether the perfection of the divine beings requires dependence (even among themselves), the necessity of being loved for the divine persons, the difference between the Father’s creation of the Son (admitting the inevitable existence of the Son) and the creatures, the justification for the use of the term «create» to denote the existence of the Son and the Holy Spirit, the causal dependence relations among the divine persons. The responses to these questions are presented with the help of objections from the various scholars and at the end the necessary modifications are presented. Since Swinburne’s concept of a triune God has gone through a process of further modifications and clarifications, the latest versions are always considered for study. Thus for example, Swinburne is more careful in The Christian God than in «Could there be More than One God» to use the term ‹God› as such only when refers the Trinity and not to the divine persons individually. 4.1.1.
When looking through the logic of philosophers from the medieval period of Philosophy and their unconvincing logic, we first look at Anselm. Anselm wanted to prove God existed, Anselm argues that you can prove the existence of God through metaphysic metaphysical analysis for example: Think of the most perfect being possible. If you can picture the most perfect being in your mind, then it is possible that it exists only in your mind as an example of Plato’s Theory of Forms. I think Anselm’s argument fails because anything you can imagine can come popping out of your mind if you wished it to be so, If I were too sit down and imagine the perfect God or the perfect island, would that perfect God or island even exist outside of my mind, would that
In the Consolation of Philosophy Boethius expresses the idea that God puts forth a plan and has it set in motion but let's fate play out the outcome of the plan. Chance on the other hand is defines as when one or multiple characters are unaware of an event that is going to happen until after it occurs. In the first half of the book The DeCameron, God is usually mentioned as somehow playing a direct role in the events happening in each story while by the time of the second half it's more about the people dictacting the story's actions. Due to there being an absence of God playing a major role in dictating the course of each story by the second part of DeCameron, the role of who puts the plan in motion is filled in by the narrators of each story, which in the case of Day 10 Story9 is Dioneo. The first paragraph of the story is spoken by the narrator in a providencial manner not only because it provides the bacakground of when the story is going to take place,when Dioneo describes the Christians as launching a great crusade around the time of Frederick I,
By the end it is made prevalent that we as a human race need to accept out fate, but as well as put work towards it. The author discusses how a worldview of these religious connections makes being alive an instinctive feeling. This source could be used to appeal to the reader’s moral interpretation of how reality works. It shows how the Pauline theology is combined with Christianity. These theories are made because they are very important in decoding dicks thoughts and reasoning’s.
Each part of his system goes on to support some further argument, as in the case above wherein his argument regarding knowing God’s existence by natural knowledge is a support for his premise 2. This interconnectedness and cohesion is present throughout Aquinas’ works and is, itself, a defense against objections since it makes any objection seem unlikely to penetrate Aquinas’ defenses. Resultingly, it seems reasonable to doubt that my objections to Aquinas’ argument are unmet. It may be that they are met and overcome in other section of the Summa Theologica or even in other works of Aquinas’, but it seems likely that they are addressed by Aquinas
The Divine Command Theory (DCT) explains which actions are moral based on whether or not God commands it. The theory is difficult to support due to its flaws, arbitration, and even due to the essence of God. While Divine Command Theorists may completely support this theory, I will argue why the theory is impractical and cannot dictate what is morally right or wrong. In understanding if this theory holds ground we must question what God commands. Instead of uncritically accepting a theory we must put it to question and eliminate any flaws.
The teleological argument, or otherwise known as the argument from design and the intelligent design argument, is a philosophical theory put forward by William Paley with its final premise of proving that god exists. The argument includes a handful of elements, however close to the fringe yet within the margin, of logic in order to assist the facilitation of accepting the premise as a truth. As we examine the argument, and its implications in the context in which it was given, we can begin to see the boundary of logic become veiled and intuition and assumptions start to interpose.The teleological argument is most commonly started with a supposition parable dealing with a watch, so lets start out with that. Suppose you are walking down along a river and along the way you spot something in the dirt. You retrieve the item and you find it is a watch.
What is the problem of evil? What are the problems that J.L. Mackie finds with the freewill solution to the problem of evil? Are there possible solutions to the problems that Mackie raises? The customary contentions for the presence of God have been reasonably completely scrutinized by rationalists.
The watch, much like the universe, behaves in a set order with "laws" set forth. Just how, for example, the laws of motion have set rules for the foundation for classical mechanics, the watch/universe has order to how things work. Although each watch may be of different shape or size, the insides are very much the same. When Paley discusses the mechanics of the watch, being that he lived in the era of the pocket watch and not today 's digital watches, he describes how every single wheel and pulley equably make their way to gracefully change each hand from one minute to the next. This is Paley 's way of describing every living thing and how the universe makes remarkable adaptations changing from one minute to the next.
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.
This argument is also known as the Teleological Argument. Some may ask what does teleological mean? Teleology is the study of trying to explain the purpose of why things happen, It is when people are studying something and they want to find the end to something or what exactly the purpose is. What this argument is trying to prove is that there is a God and there has been evidence to prove so. An example of how this argument works is the analogy with the pocket watch.