Analyse the essential ideas in the Ontological Argument The Ontological (meaning ‘concerned with being’) argument is the only a priori argument for the existence of God. This means that it does not rely on the evidence of our senses for its premises or conclusion. It works by logical stages, which is self evidently true or logically necessary. This is one of its major strengths. It is also deductive, so the conclusion is the only possible one that could be deduced give the premises.
I myself am an Atheist, and therefore in my opinion believe miracles are impossible as all miracles are by, definition impossible if they claim to be the action of a deity. There are four different definitions of miracles, A ‘radical change for the better’ in a person, an ordinary event which has Religious significance for the believer, A remarkable or unusual event which has been directly caused by God but does not go against or break the laws of nature and The ‘laws of nature’ are being broken by God, which is the definition David Hume (18th Century) uses. This more traditional understanding of a miracle is the understanding of classical Theism, namely that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and therefore he does intervene on occasion to perform miracles. As an atheist, David Hume refutes miracles, he does not believe that they can happen, although he has one of the most famous definitions of the traditional understanding of a miracle. Hume
Mark 11:22; II Cor 5:17-19. The word doubt- Two opinions about one decision Proverb 3:5 BELIEF- Excepting as a fact what I can not verify with my five senses. FAITH- Willing to speak it (the WORD) and act upon it with no other factual evidence all you have is what God says. 1. Prayerfully seek out the will of God, faith begins where the will of God is known.
This conclusion was based on three principles. The first of these is empiricism. This is to say, we interpret religious experiences in the same way that we would for any other situation. Next we have pluralism. This tells us that regardless of differing religions, all experiences originate from the ultimate reality and act as proof for the existence of God.
Howard Thurman in The Creative Encounter, a four part lecture series delivered in 1954 at Ohio Wesleyan University, has left much to be desired. Thurman begins by shining sunlight on one's personal experience or encounter with God. He allows the reader to adjust to the powers of the light by introducing it one candle light at a time. The first candle Thurman introduces is the inwardness of religion, which he defines as the attempt to understand or become aware of self at its most basic yet most potent form. Yet in dwelling in the deeper self, we find God's presence creeping there with us, outside the one thing, in which we have all come to imprison God in – The Bible.
And last but not least, why are personal testimonies important in sharing the gospel? As we continue in this reflection paper, these three topics will be addressed. And not only addressed but we will learn to of credit all of the knowledge to the power of God. In recognizing the power of God, we learn more about who we are in Christ. And as we learn who we are in Christ, we will be driven by the power of God.
Moore would say we can see these self evident truths when, in an argument, we are reduced to “it’s just wrong,” they require no further explanation, proof or justification. This seems a fairly logical conclusion, in order to justify what we do we look at it in basic terms, but such a process could not take place indefinitely without coming to a base truth which could not be broken down further. It’s the classic “it just is” situation in an argument, where the statement cannot be further simplified nor justified. The problem however is agreeing on what these basic moral truths are. Moore and WD Ross a fellow intuitionist agreed that pleasure, knowledge and virtue are all intrinsically good, and pain, ignorance and vice are intrinsically bad.
Both of them would be right because the truth is relative to what they believe. The first major problem that is seen with this is that you can believe god exists and you can believe he does not exits but that does not change the existence or non existence of god. You can not change what actually is by what you believe, there is proof of this in our
← Can religious experiences be “explained away” by science? Definitions: ← An experience with religious significance, e.g. the act of worship in a religious setting ← A person’s experience of something or a presence beyond themselves Arguments for religious experience as evidence for God’s existence There are two different variants on the basic valid argument: The argument from 1st person experience:
The best way to be one with Brahman is to do nothing, to achieve nirvana. In Christian theism the relationship with God is very important. Another difference is that God is an entity, a divine being while Brahman is everything. “Brahman, the One, absolute spirit is by definition beyond rational understanding. This is because ultimate reality is impersonal, non-rational and unknowable…” (Leffel,