God has a very broad meaning and the meaning varies from person to person. Therefore, shutting down the theories of God’s existence outright would not be fair to people who look for God as a purpose to live for. One of the most prominent theologians in history is Thomas Aquinas, who developed the “five proofs” theory to prove that God exists. Most of his proofs consist of the main idea that everything that exists in the universe has some sort of origin. This origin, in Aquinas’ eyes, is God.
However, there are so many mysteries in the world that science cannot explain that many people believe something, a much larger force, must be behind it. As a result, many theologians have attempted to prove the existence of God. One of the strongest arguments for the existence of God is the Ontological position. Ontological arguments are “derived from some source, other than observation of the world, so from reason alone.” The first and best-known Ontological argument for the existence of God was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th Century. Anselm’s argument is based on the idea that anyone who hears about God or thinks about God, has an idea of who God is.
After reading this article one will see why people have different opinions of the earth. Also, Mortenson briefly describes those who were involved with these theories as well as telling the audience about their backgrounds and beliefs. He mentions how these men came up with their theories without the involvement of God. Mortenson goes on to defend his arguments by listing and describing the men involved in scriptural geology. Towards the end of the article the author states how most theories developed go completely against what the Bible teaches.
And scriptural geologists believe in the biblical account of a literal six-day creation of all things by God, followed by a global flood which created that geological record.” (Mortenson) The strengths in the article are the differing views presented by various scientists and non-scientists both Christian and non-Christian based. Dr. Mortenson summarized these scientist’s views straight to their points of belief. The points that I found clear was that there was not proof to back the “theories” of the Old Earth views expressed and there was proof of the New Earth view, the Bible. I feel the weakness of the article was that there was not much elaboration on the scientist’s findings. There were a lot Journal Article Review One 3 of names and dates given but not a lot of detail.
It is snowballing; it builds on achievements of previous scientists. This explanation shows that science can be a belief system as nothing can ever be proven 100% as there will always be something or someone that will disprove a theory with other evidence and therefore people belief what they have been told. This is much like religions in a way by the fact that religion cannot be proven it is something that people believe in. If Popper is right then it doesn’t why science has grown over the last few centuries. Merton argues that science can only succeed as a major social institution if it receives support from other institutions and values.
All human beings seek to be rational in what they do. Yes, science does provide a method of justifying rationality but God is the other part of the spectrum that science cannot explain. God is also another figure that provides rationality to someone who does not understand science the only path to salvation and to rationality is through religion. If this form of God takes 1000 different shapes across many religions, it does not make God untrue, it is just a manifestation. The biggest contradictory idea against the motion would be that of whether God can be proven empirically.
Deductive argument forms such as Modus Ponens can be used to prove that there is a God. It is impossible to completely prove or disprove the existence of God, but hundreds of intellectuals have created arguments to support their view on the topic. I believe that God exists due to the argument created by Thomas Aquinas of the unmoved mover. Things are not moved by themselves. Things move.
NO CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE Take into account that the atheist and some Christians believe in the trinity and the contradictions they came across .What so see as contradictions has no argument to prove the claim .According to Dr. Clifford Wilson in an interview by Dr Carl Wieland ; Have you found in your researches in archaeology anything that has contradicted the biblical account in a definite sense? He replied, “There have been plenty of claims that things contradict the biblical account, but the Bible has a habit of being proved right after all. I well remember one of the world’s leading archaeologists at Gezer rebuking a younger archaeologist who was ‘rubbishing’ the Bible. He just quietly said, ‘Well, if I were you, I wouldn’t rubbish the Bible.’ When the younger archaeologist asked ‘Why’? He replied, ‘Well, it just has a habit of proving to be right after all.’ And that’s where I stand.
* In 18th century, most of scientists still believed in the God who created the universe; however, they no longer believed in a personified God who actively involved in human life. * In 19th century, the conflict became the primary tone because the Creationism was severely shaken by the Cell theory, the Evolutionism, and the Law of Energy Conservation. * From 20th century to recent time, “Conflict, Independence, Dialogue and Integration”. Relationship in and after 20th century (“Fourfold Typology” mode) * Conflict: the traditional conflict has basically ended because of the developments of Catholic doctrines. The traditional conflict was replaced by a balance between Catholicism and natural science.
The Ontological Argument Many arguments have been formulated to present a case for the existence of God. The Ontological Argument, being one of them, is unique among the others. It essentially sets out to show God’s existence using reason alone, independent from ones experience (a priori). This argument has been the cause of great curiosity and fascination through many generations of philosophers because the line of reasoning it presents can be followed by an unbeliever. Presented below will be both a brief explanation of the argument and a criticism that has been raised against the argument.