Using these different types of language demonstrates a difficulty; assuming that when we speak of God, we are speaking cognitively- assuming that our statement is something that is either true or false and that it is able to describe an extinct being, God. Philosophers have always had a debate between this. Some say that a statement of God is non-cognitive, statements not subject to true of falsity. This led to a strong trial and tribulation to religious faith and its believers. Some such as Mortiz Schlick claim that religious belief is literally meaningless; religious statements are nonsense and should not be the basis of philosophical discussion.
• The Theory of Archetypes - Geza Roheim argues that the theory of archetypes is unnecessary. As humans share the same experiences, such as dependence on parents, it is not surprising that they construct similar myths. Also, some religious myths come from the experiences of a particular community and so it seems unlikely that they are born out of an idea which is present in all humans. Therefore, it is argued that Jung is not justified in stating that there is an ‘instinct for God’ just because people believe in God. Also, many people do not believe in God.
For Coleridge, this is impossible because religion entails something spiritual, something deeper than just rationalism. In Coleridge’s opinion the idea to rationalize something that de facto cannot be rationalized (because of its spiritual quality) is preposterous. There is a transcendent and spiritual link with God that has nothing to do with rationalism and it would be bringing down the very foundations of religion to think so. Then Coleridge tackles head on the issue of language. According to him there should be a part of mystery in the things.
This leads to conclusions that differ greatly from those who hold to absolute truth. They believe that Jim Leffel states that relativism says the truth isn't set by outside reality, but is decided by a group or individual for themselves. Truth isn't discovered but manufactured. Truth is ever changing not only in insignificant matters of taste or fashion, but in crucial matters of spirituality, morality and reality itself. Leading postmodern thinker John Caputo writes, "The cold, hermeneutic truth is that there is no truth, no master name which holds things captive."
Agnosticism is the purely epistemological stance that sufficient evidence does not exist for or against theism therefore the best stance on the argument is no stance at all. Combinations of these positions are possible due to their varying natures, but here only the argument between theism and atheism is examined more closely. The problem of evil is described and used to argue against the existence of God. Richard Swinburne’s solution to the problem of evil is explained and used to revise the original atheist’s argument from evil to its best, but still insufficient, form. Commonly, atheists hold the view that organized religions are corrupt and actually cause more harm than good.
“So where does this leave thee philosophers, the scholars and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe.” (1 Corinthians 1:20-21 New living Translation). In the following verses it is stated that God saw in his wisdom that the world would never know him through human wisdom. Human wisdom is limited, because its bases off of prior knowledge and instinct, the wisdom of the world from philosophers, scholars, Greeks, Jews, and Gentiles is foolish to God.
On his quest for true knowledge, Descartes discovered that his senses alone failed. Descartes agreed to some degree with skeptists; that what we percieve may not be real, that he could dream of what he experiences or that something might be controlling his thoughts, but what he can not deny is that he does think. He is quoted as famously saying, "I think; therefore, I am". Although some rationalist believe that God must exist, there are many people who think rationalism leads to Atheism because you can not prove God's existance through logical positivism. The only way to determine truth or what is real, is to deduce.
But this contradicts the definition of God. Therefore, we must posit that God exists.” (p. 5). Despite the many debates Anselm’s theory created over the meaning of “greater” and “being”, Crutcher (2010) argues that Anselm’s theory fails “as an argument against non-theists because its premises can be freely doubted.” (p. 5). If one doubts that God exists, they will also doubt the qualities predicated to God. “The conclusion
Science and Religion very sparingly share like outcomes when they are attempting to verify the positions of the other. The mere existence of God, a divine being, gives light to a debate that has at periods in time been the root cause of dramatic and deep reaching separation between science’s purist and religious teachers. In the text we read that the emphasis on the provisionality of scientific theories severely undermines the “also outdated” positivism that often accompanies the Warfare model of the relation of science
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.