Each of Aquinas’s three ways established a different role of God. His first way, the unmoved mover, follows this set structure of premises; Everything that moves must haves a something that moves it. He rules out the possibility of infinite regress because he believes you cannot have an infinite chain of events without something which at first caused it. Therefore there must be a prime mover, a first mover to which Aquinas states must be God. Thereby the first role of God established by Aquinas in his first way is that God is the ‘prime mover’.
'Boethius was successful in his argument that God rewards and punishes justly.' Discuss When considering whether or not Boethius was successful in his argument we must first determine if it would be 'just' for God to reward or punish at all. Some argue Boethius' idea of an omniscient God creates conflict between God's knowledge and human free will. Where to be justly rewarded or punished we must have a free choice to decide our actions good or bad, if there is no choice it would not be just to punish someone who had no other option but the action foreseen by God. This raises problems for Boethius' argument, however he addresses this and creates a counter assertment.
However, John 3:16 clearly states “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”. (New International Version Bible, 2014) With that being said, I feel that belief is the only way to heaven, or should I say your gateway into heaven. You have to believe that Jesus died for your sins; you have to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, lastly and most importantly you have
Secular Humanists believe when you die, that’s the end of everything; there is no afterlife. There is no judgment seat, and no rewards for the deeds or misdeeds completed during the life of a person. This is summed up by a phrase I heard by many times throughout my life “When you’re dead, you’re done.” Compare/Contrast with Biblical/Christian Worldview Since I chose a worldview that’s in blatant contrast to my Christian beliefs,
(Heb. 6:1 faith is the substance of things hope for and the evidence of things not seen. I would answer the Axiological question by saying, “God is the creator of the for universe.” Not only does he creates everything, he is everything. So that means because God is of value, we are of value too.We have to always keep God center. (Exodus 20:3 You shall have no other Gods me.)
According to the biblical, the Christians worldview on the origin of life is that Christians believe that God created everything that exists. That God created us in his image, he is the alpha and the omega the beginning and the end. No one shall get to him, only through his son Jesus Christ. Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:7. The Bible says that we are chosen by God and given a purpose.
Berkley would have even held this to be true of himself, and Berkeley, being a Christian brings God back into philosophy and science by positing God to be the Prime perceiver of all things. So what follows? Berkeley, much like his wife and kids, are ideas not of himself but of God who is always perceiving. God insures that our physical world is not vanquished when we shut our eyes or when we are not perceiving it in any way. His wife is really there, insofar that God is always perceiving her, likewise with himself and his
For religious believers, the Irenaean theodicy would solve the problem of evil as it explains how both evil and suffering co-exist with God. However, there may be too many underlying problems with the theodicy, making it hard to convince some religious believers. For example, if God is said to be omnibenevolent, then surely he couldn’t have made such moral spiritual virtues inbuilt in his creation. Even if the Irenaean theodicy is believable, it can’t justify why God would allow such suffering in his world, and surely, he would enable his creations to learn such lessons in a far easier way. Additionally, it’s never justifiable to hurt anyone in order to help them, and so the Irenaean theodicy fails to defend God in the presence of evil.
The counter argument to this though, is that animals do not fall under his jurisdiction and so the brutality that is nature is out of his control. God can only then make humans all good; which is apparent to be untrue (war, rape, murder.) In effect, Gould has showed that there could very validly be no active god. Whichever way a person’s belief systems lean, this paper by Stephen Jay Gould is a very insightful read into one way of thinking. Whether that means it solely educates those who firmly believe in god that there are other views, or it converts a person to non religious views, it is a worthwhile read.
Ethics Essay Ethics Essay 3a) i) examine the arguments for and against the view that morality is independent of religion? ii) To what extent are these arguments convincing I am going to examine the arguments for and against the view that morality is independent on religion, by examining the argument from both sides, then looking at their strengths and weaknesses and then I will conclude with my line of argument. The first argument I am going to examine is for the statement, which is Plato’s Euthyphro. Plato stated that “is something good because God says its good or does God say it is good because it is good”. 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.