Religious Language is meaningless. Discuss. Religious Language goal is not to determine whether God does or does not exist it is to help explain God in a meaningful way. You have the traditional view of using specific Religious Language which for years has been used to describe God however you also have people like the Logical Positivists who were a group of philosophers who were primarily concerned with the truth contained in statements we can make, or in other words, with what can be logically posited, or stated. And then philosophers such as R.M Hare, Paul Tilich and Aquinas, arguing that Religious Language is meaningful, however I will be arguing both sides of the arguments, coming to a conclusion against the statement.
For Anselm, God cannot not exist. Descartes supported Anselm in his book ‘meditations’ and developed Anselm’s argument particularly in terms of necessary being. He based his argument for God’s existence on the idea that God is a ‘supremely perfect being’. Descartes believed that we can conclude that God exists, because existence is a predicate of a perfect being; therefore God must exist to avoid being self contradictory.
God also makes a promise to Jacob and doesn’t give him a mission like he does with Moses, emphasising that with different visions come different messages. The actuality of the image of God appearing before man also raises people’s attentions and also suggests that this is definitely a vision from God because according to the bible Christians are not supposed to see the God as a human figure until they reach heaven. The previous examples also highlight that not all visions are the same; they can happen in different ways, such as dreams or physical experiences. In the case of Hildegard
When Biblical scholars debate this they lose the true meaning of the text. They become more focused on proving it to be factual rather than looking at the scripture for what it is. The scientific theory is backed by better evidence and is more likely to be true, there is too much evidence to ignore it, and therefore it should be accepted for the most part. Then Genesis can be used as a metaphorical story that allows us to understand more fully who God really is. Genesis 1-2 can show us that God is all-powerful and all-loving.
One or the other had to have been delusional about their teachings. Clifford questions who was delusional, or if they both were. There is no evidence that Mohammad or Buddha knew what the truth was, and how does one know that Mohammad was not dreaming or hallucinating about the angel Gabriel appearing to him, and that his visit to paradise was not only a dream. Based on this, Clifford concludes that the greatness of someone should not give us reason to believe their truths. Clifford uses another example about the prophet to support his argument.
Placher finishes by saying that if we really believe and trust in the Bible, we should be willing to put the effort in to better understand the Bible. “Is the Bible true?” In William C. Placher’s article, “Is the Bible true?” he begins his argument by stating his claim that the Bible is indeed true, but also by trying to find a different way of explaining how the Bible is true. He proceeds to point out that his thesis entails two main claims: what the Bible means is true and we can trust the Bible as a guide. By exploring these two claims thoroughly, Placher has broadened the understanding of the importance of knowing how culture has changed over time and how people would have read and interpreted scripture throughout history.
Many people believe that morality is dependent is religion and morality is based on the religious scholars and holy books. There is no point in morality of God hadn’t set the moral values in the first place. However, some also say that humans only behave morally because they’re scared of God and any punishment to follow. There are several approaches that are taken when attempting to work out the relationship between religion and morality. ‘Is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved?’ In Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma, Plato is asking ‘is x good because God loves it or does God love x because x is good?’ An example of this is murder; is murder wrong because God says it is or is murder wrong because it is wrong morally?
In order to disprove the evil demon hypothesis, Descartes examines the different degrees of reality in things in comparison to God. Descartes' idea of God is of an infinite substance. The idea of infinite substances cannot be caused by a finite substance, but only by another infinite substance, such as God himself. Therefore Descartes concludes that God as an infinite substance exists. Several criticisms can be made concerning Meditation III.
For some, the word "confrontation," is taken in a negative way. For Adams the idea of confrontation involves the authority of God’s Word, and not a shouting match or belligerency. There is an authoritative element in the term confrontation that rightly conveys the idea that biblical counseling has something of importance to say. Because he counsels on the basis of the Scriptures, the counselor’s stance is not that of a mere consultant, but rather that of a servant of God acting as a prophet, speaking forth the Word of God that applies to the need at hand. The idea is that the counselor uses the Bible to instruct and guide the counselee.
This means that do we do good things because God says is good or do we do good things so than God says that it is good. Another argument I am going to examine, is for the statement, and it is an argument based on a group of people called Anti-Theists. They don’t believe in God, so they agree with the statement. However, Anti-Theists like Richard Dawkins say that anyone who believes in religion or in a god is an extremist and it clouds and distorts your view on morality. The next argument that I am going to examine is what some people in the world think, but it is based around Cultural Relativists, who say that if morality was decided for by God then he could say one day to murder somebody and it would be fine.