This leads to a conflict between law of nature and miracle stories. Hume would question which is more likely – that the law of nature has been violated or that the eyewitness accounts are mistaken? Hume stated that miracles do not happen because there is so much testable evidence in the favour of laws of science. However, Peter Vardy in ‘Puzzle of God’ highlights that there are more miracles reported today and some are scientifically verified e.g. Lourdes.
That is how is written on his tombstone and it should be remember that way, like a hero. I also believe by us talking about his character flaws it wouldn’t be fair for him because he is not present to defend himself or to even listen to his side of the argument. No one is perfect, people in general have flaws and doesn’t determine the time of person they are or will become, Jefferson should be remember for his accomplishments and all the good he did this
Second, he asks the following question, if God created evil and goodness, why can he simply make evil disappear? In a conclusion taken from the Euthyphro dilemma, this question demonstrates a limitation in God’s power, which is indicating a mayor flaw in the Divine Command Theory. Because the Divine Command Theory is based on faith, Mortimer, the main proponent of this theory, could find difficult to respond to John Arthur’s arguments. In other words, faith does not have a scientific explanation which makes it hard to be understood by some individuals. But one of Mortimer’s strongest arguments could be that the DCT is the only theory that explains and distinguishes between right and wrong in a simple and clear
Responding to an Atheistic View A.W. Tozer once said, “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us”. In the his article, On Being an Atheist, H.J. McCloskey leaves little doubt of what enters his mind when he thinks about God. He argues that there are no real reasons to believe in God and takes the approach of dissecting several arguments used by both sides of the spectrum.
Kant proclaims “the belief that we have cognition of something through experience which we in fact cannot accept as happening according to objective laws of experience (faith in miracles)”(p.185). He credits faith's mass appeal and staying power as the main reason for the growth of corrupted notions of miracles and saving grace. Kant was not a believer that accepting Jesus Christ as our savior would be all that is needed in Christian grace to free oneself from sin. Kant says “It is totally inconceivable, however, how a rational human being who knows himself to deserve punishment could seriously believe that he only has to believe the news of satisfaction having been rendered Page 1 for him, and accept it utiliter, in order to regard his guilt as done away with” (p. 123). These ideas of Kant seem to imply he is not a believer of Jesus or that miracles have never happened, the idea Kant is developing that miracles are not necessary for us to develop moral
This argument is very important for religious believers, but has come under criticism from those who do not believe, who say that it is flawed. Gaunilo, and Immanuel Kant, feel that we will never have the answer to this question due to our human limitations, and reason. . St. Anselm’s first form of the argument is that God is “that than which none greater can be conceived”. This means that no one can think of anything that is greater than God.
Christians could argue that they believe Jesus was still the Messiah and everything he stood for is what they believe in but maybe the authenticity of miracles today can be questioned as there is no Jesus around to prove them being performed by a Deity just as the definition says there should be. So believing in miracles would be hard to do because there is no proof because Christians just have to believe what the Bible says and can not question it even though there is no proof of miracles other than what the Bible says. It would be hard for Christians to believe in miracles because there is no evidence that supports them… (The Bible can’t be classed as evidence because it has no proof it’s real and could be a fictional book) But Christians would have to believe in them because if they disagree that would be sort of going against the belief of Jesus. I think Christians don’t have a choice and have to believe in miracles otherwise they’re going
Dawkins and Aquinas: Theology Whether it’s argumentative or sentimental, an author always aims to get a significant truth across to the reader. In the novel “The God Delusion,” Richard Dawkins analyzes many theories that theologians have developed about the existence of God and essentially squanders them. Through his unique sense of humor and his idea of “logic”, he gives reasons of why the theories of Thomas Aquinas, and other theories as well, are not well developed and are incorrect. Although he does raise some interesting points in his arguments, he does not address enough issues to completely reject the theories of God’s existence. God has a very broad meaning and the meaning varies from person to person.
In an attempt to assess the implications of miracles for the problem of evil, we must look at what the problem of evil consists of. God is said to be wholly benevolent and omnipotent however there is evil and suffering in the world. If God is all loving and all powerful, He has the power to stop evil because He loves His creation yet it still exists. C.S Lewis states that “If God was good, He would wish to make his creatures perfectly happy and if God were almighty He would be able to do what He wished. But the creatures are not happy.
The lack of clarification for the term “proofs” does a disservice to McCloskey’s opening. The very things he considers “proofs” to the theist are in most studious circles actually considered “arguments” for the case of theism not “proofs”. It may appear the he is attempting to run it altogether to misdirect the reader into believing something that is not. McCloskey refers to the arguments as proofs and he often implies that they can’t definitively establish the case for God, but the Cumulative Case using the Cosmological Argument, the creator, the Teleological Argument, the intelligent designer and the Moral Argument, that He is a personal, morally perfect being is the best explanation that God exists which is the best explanation for the universe we experience. The claims of science aren’t a hundred percent indisputable or even a hundred percent factual and yet they are still accepted as valid, rationally convincing or highly probable, thus the belief in theism doesn’t have to be irrefutable to be accepted as the same.