According to him, there must be as much reality or perfection in the cause of anything as in the effect. Moreover, he believed that the notion of God represents something so ideal that he could not have been the cause of this idea. I believe that Descartes arguments are not really such convincing because of the following reasons which I would like to point out. We may all come to this point and consider that we all exist; however, it’s not completely true because Descartes had an idea of the perfect being in his mind, but I surely don't have such an idea. Now what am I to believe?
Creatio ex nilho simply put means creation out of nothing. Creatio ex nilho is a topical subject since it opposes the idea of God as a craftsman. It is unclear in the first Genesis account in Genesis 1 whether there was actually pre-existent material to craft whether he really did create ‘ex nilho’. There has also been a point made that when they said that God created ‘ex nilho’ he brought order to chaos rather than created ‘ex nilho’ Genesis 1 states it was only when God commanded on day 1, that the heavens and earth appeared. Whereas, Genesis 2 says our world was created by pre-existent material such as the creation of man from ‘dust.’ The idea ‘Creatio ex nilho’ lies originally with Augustine, he said ‘creation out of nothing’ does not relate to one particular moment but in fact the universe has its own time and space, which is eternal.
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
The Jewish Talmud states Obadiah was not Jewish, but rather an Edomite proselyte God used to rebuke his own people. DATES It is very difficult to know when Obadiah was written because there is nothing in the heading or introduction of the book to pinpoint the date. Therefore, we must look in the text of the book for historical clues that point to the date. In addition to being the shortest book in the OT, Obadiah also "bears the distinction of being the most difficult of all the prophecies to date" (Gleason Archer). His work is ascribed to periods
Since the beginning of time, the idea of a God or a supreme being existing has been debated and argued. One argument that supports the existence of God is the Ontological Argument. An Ontological Argument is an argument for God’s existence that begins with the idea of supreme perfection or unsurpassable greatness. The Ontological Argument can also be seen as the idea that God has placed within us a knowledge that God exists and cares for us. Anselm (1033–1109) had opposed an Ontological Argument that one understands God as a being and cannot conceive anything greater because God cannot be understood not to exist.
Scientists as well as common people doubt the Bible when it comes to Noah’s Ark. They do not believe it to be possible for the Ark to have fit two of every kind as God had asked. If all of the species we have found and those that are
‘The universe needs no explanation.’ Discuss. (10 marks) Christian philosopher St Thomas Aquinas would have disagreed with this statement as he was the one that put the cosmological argument forward which questions the universe and how it came into existence. Aquinas would have maintained his view as he believes that everything that is in motion has been caused by something else and he believes that this something else is God. He also claims that God is the first cause as he is the one that caused the universe to come into existence and continues to keep it in motion. He would continue to disagree with this statement because he claimed that because everything in the universe is contingent, it must mean that the universe as a whole must have a cause behind it.
In their time, the Romans did not know how their city came to be, so they had special beliefs about the creation of Rome. Such beliefs were: “The myth about Romulus and Remus explains the creation of Rome.” and “Whens had The first aspect that the Ancient Romans held special beliefs about was the creation of the world. The Romans had no scientific way of explaining how the world was created, so they took it upon themselves to create stories that would explain it. Some of the special beliefs of the creation of the world that the Ancient Romans had were: “in the beginning there was absolutely nothing”, “a god then rolled the lifeless matter into a ball which became Earth”, “this spirit divided the Earth into five ‘zones’” and “It was in these zones that everything was created — lakes, seas, land, animals, etc.” (“Roman Creation Myth”) As evident from the quotes, the Romans’ myths beheld their special beliefs of the creation of the world. The quotes are the special beliefs that the Ancient Romans had about the creation of the world and these are facts that they belien Romulus and Remus grew up, they visited the place where they were found by the wolf” (“Creation Myths of the Ancient Romans”).
To have faith in someone on past knowledge, according to McCloskey, is reasonable however; it is unreasonable to have faith in God as we have no past knowledge of God. Theists base their knowledge of God on the revelations that He has given us, the Bible, and the
So when we say ’God is good’, we need to know that we are using ’good’ in that sentence. In univocal terms this would be claiming that God is good in some way that humans are, Aquinas rejected this as he believed God to be perfect. Because of this, imperfect humans can’t be good in the same way that God is. In equivocal terms, this would mean that God is good in a totally different way to humans, Aquinas rejected that too. He argued that if people speak equivocally about God, then it cannot profess to know anything about him as it is saying that the language we use to describe humans or the experienced world around us, doesn’t apply to God.