Professor Barbara C. Sproul REL 205 Section 001 5 February 2013 Being or Not-Being Paul Tillich’s “Religion as a Dimension in Man’s Spiritual Life” is his argument against two groups of people, the Literal Theologians and Social Scientist. The Literal Theologians believe that Religion is given by God and he does exist as a being. While the Social Scientist argues that Religion is a man made and God is a being who does not exist. Tillich in the middle of this has a side that he supports and that side is neither. Paul Tillich argues against the literal theologians and the social scientists as well.
The argument from religious experience states that if we can experience God, then surely God must exist because what we experience must be real. There are many philosophers that try to explain this but the one I am going to focus on in this essay is William James. James defines religious experience as though it should be the primary topic in the study if religion rather than religious institutions, since institutions are merely the social descendent of genius. He also defines a religious experience as, 'The feelings, acts and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatsoever they may consider divine.’ To James a prominent feature of religious experience is mysticism. He says, '...propose to you four marks which, when an experience has them, may justify us in calling it mystical...' The marks to which he is referring to are inefficiently, notices quality, transiency and passivity.
Summary Permission to Believe by Lawrence Kelleman is intended to provide a few rational approaches to God’s existence. The author begins the book by saying that people cannot believe in God because their “intellects dont allow them to”. He then goes on to say that others believe in God for “irrational reasons ”and only believe because it is Thier faith. Chapter one discusses atheism and agnosticism, both of which do not believe in an Almighty. Chapter two begins with the moral approach to God’s existence.
McCloskey attempts to make an argument for the non-existence of God and to give reasons why atheism is more comforting than theism. This paper is a response to that article which will address certain ideas raised by Mr. McCloskey. This author is a theist and will present arguments to show the reasoning for the existence and necessity of God. To begin with, McCloskey suggests in his article that the theist’s arguments are “proofs” which do not provide definitive evidence for the existence of God, so therefore, they should be discarded. This is not a justified argument due to the fact that theists do not try to definitely prove the existence of God.
As the great scientist pursued their work exalting God, more were questioning the religious truths and values? Who had rules of reasoning to discover nature’s law? Who said every person was born with a blank mind or “tabula Rasa,” and believed we gain knowledge from reason, not faith? Who recognized the center of leaders of the enlightenment,
Genesis 1-2 can show us that God is all-powerful and all-loving. As far as Genesis 1-2 goes, it is more important to understand the scripture, rather than prove it to be factual. “Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavor, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization” (Ferngren, 2). Genesis 1-2 is the cause of much unnecessary tension between the religious and scientific communities. The writers of Genesis 1-2 wrote it in a way that presents the Earth’s creation as a factual account of God creating the heavens and the Earth.
McCloskey contended against the three mystical verifications, which are the cosmological argument, the argument from design and the teleological argument. He called attention to the presence of evil on the planet that God made. He likewise called attention to that it is irrational to live by trust or faith. As indicated by McCloskey, confirmations do not essentially assume a fundamental part in the conviction of God. Page 62 of the article expresses that "most theists do not come to have faith in God as a premise for religious conviction, however come to religion as a consequence of different reasons and variables."
In William L. Rowe’s essay The Ontological Argument Rowe carefully details an argument that, upon first read, appears to convincingly prove that God does not exist. His argument has, however, been even more carefully torn apart and examined by some of the worlds greatest philosophers and is often criticized. In my essay I will prove that Rowe’s argument although seemingly perfect comes nowhere near disproving the existence of a God. Quote #1 “…Anselm insists that anyone who hears of God, thinks about God, or even denies the existence of God is, nevertheless, committed to the view that God exists in the understanding.” I will use this quote to support the idea of God. This quote does not prove his existence but it does prove that
“It would be misleading to think that all these factors influenced all scientists to the same degree. However, a major component of anyone’s theoretical outlook is his religious worldview (which could be atheism or agnosticism, as well as a traditional religion). Worldview had a far more significant influence on the origin of old-earth geology than has often been perceived or acknowledged. A person’s worldview not only affects the interpretation of the facts but even the observation of the facts. Another prominent historian of science rightly comments about scientists and non-scientists: ‘men often perceive what they expect, and overlook what they do not wish to
After reading both arguments I concluded that it is very hard to come to any conclusion about the origin of the universe and the world. Both arguments in my opinion are inductive arguments about religion, the origin and Nature of God and the universe. It’s like these are things that can never be proven true and absolute. Paley attempts to prove with his arguments that God is in fact the designer and creator of the universe. I agree with him.