His first form of the argument runs as follows: (P1) God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived (P2) If God exists in the mind alone (in intellect) then a greater being can be conceived (in re) (P3) God to be the greatest being, has to existing the mind and in reality, otherwise another being would be greater than God. (C) Therefore God must exist both in the mind and in reality. This method of reasoning aims to demonstrate the truth of something by reducing to absurdity the very opposite of what you are trying to prove. In Anselm’s case this would be that God does not exist, which he claims is absurd by means of an argument which he claims is logically necessary. For Anselm, God cannot not exist.
Calvin’s idea of predestination suggests that some people are God’s ‘elect’ and that, after death, these ‘elect’ will join God in heaven. Believers in predestination claim that our actions, whether ‘elect’ or ‘damned’, are predestined or decided by God; meaning that we have very little, if any at all, free will in our decision making or actions. This theory of predestination often leads people to believe in a God ‘who favours some but not all of his creation’, which would be intrinsically linked to miracles in the sense that, regardless of what we do, God has already decided whether he will interact with the world or perform a miracle. Miracles, in this sense, are seen not as unsystematic breaches of natural law but rather as the eternal intention of God for the world. For this reason, people who agree with Calvin in believing in predestination often find it difficult to understand why miracles aren’t common occurrences.
And for morality to require God in such a way, there must be a direct link between the two. I believe that morality is defined by God, therefore immoral actions are wrong solely because God forbids them. Similarly, the “rightness” of moral actions is only because God has commanded them. In today's world things are defined as “right” or “wrong” or “moral” and “immoral.” This is because God, is the one that has allowed us to even understand what morality is. I believe that God is the creator and sustainer of all things, and that we would not even be self aware, let alone aware of right and wrong, if God had not created within us his image, and therefore the ability to make moral distinctions.
It also puts limits on God’s power. According to the definition of a theistic God, God is omnipotent. If God is all powerful then he should be able to command whatever he wants but by saying that morality is independent of God would mean that God is subject to the rules of morality (Fisher, 359). All in all the main issues with the Autonomy Thesis are that it would only be reasonable if one was not considering the existence of a theistic
God wanted us to love him but also want us to fear him as well. Christians believe that God is the father of creation and Kings of Kings. Christians would explain the characteristics different because of the opinions and views that they have. As a Christian I view God as loving, mercy, and forgiving. He loves us just as much as he love his only son.
Paul Tillich argues against the literal theologians and the social scientists as well. He says that “religion has rediscovered its true place in man’s spiritual life, namely, in its depth, out of which it gives substance, ultimate meaning, judgment and creative courage to all functions of the human spirit.” (Tillich 9) In my opinion and it may be clouded by my religion, which is Christianity, is that God does exist and one will not
Many, if not most, Christians would argue that they believe the second statement and that morality depends entirely on God as he is omnipotent and omnibenevolant and so is the source of goodness. One reason why atheists would argue that Christians cannot follow any other statement is because if morality was grounded if something other than God, it means that atheists could do morally good actions consciously, without requiring religious faith, and could perhaps be more morally good than a Christian, making belief in or obedience to God pointless. Therefore, theists need to claim that morality can only be understood through God because what He commands is good, to set them apart from and above the rest of society in
Do you agree that if Jesus were to return to earth today he would be a Christian? No, I do not agree with the statement but before I give my point of view let’s take all the opinions in to account. A few people believe that yes Jesus would be a Christian as he started the Christian religion. Christianity means follower of the Christ so it would be kind of weird that he is following himself. But Christianity does follow the teachings of Jesus so wouldn’t it make sense that he would be a Christian.
While few Methodists pastors believe in inerrancy, conservatives view scripture as the unique revelation of God. The Bible contains all we need to know to be saved and to live the Christian life. Conservatives believe that the four gospels are the heart of scripture and accurately portray the life of Christ. Christian Ethics- Because of their skepticism of human nature and reason, conservatives believe we must be guided by the principles found in the Old and New Covenants. Christian love must be guided by the moral teachings of scripture and the church.
Descartes declares he has to determine if there is a God and if he does exist, whether he can be a deceiver. The reason he has to determine the existence of God and what he is, rests in his theories of ideas. This is because we do not know if there is an outside world and we can almost imagine everything, so all depends on God’s existence and if he is a deceiver. “To prove that this non-deceiving God exists, Descartes finds in his mind a few principles he regards as necessary truths which are evident by the “natural light” which is the power or cognitive faculty for clear and distinct perception.” If arguments is presented in logical trains of thought, people could not help but to be swayed and to understand those arguments. Natural light