Which Aquinas believed reflects the Eternal Law. The Natural Law refers to the moral law of God which has been built into each human nature; however it can be seen by everyone as it does not depend on belief in God as long as you use you reason when faced with a situation then you have done the
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
The rational mind states otherwise. It is what we say in our hearts that allow us to think that God does exist. In Samuel Clarke’s Cosmological Argument it is clearly argued that something has existed for all of eternity. Nothing was ever created without a cause therefore this is a contradiction. Yet if anything is made and there is no cause at all for it, is to say that something is affected when it is affected by nothing or at all affected.
He believes there truly is no comparison. In fact, he believes that there is nothing we can compare this world to because, as far as we know, there is not another world even similar to us. We have no standard in which we can judge our world because our world is all we know. According to Hume, we cannot assume a Christian God as the creator. He was not sure we could even assume a creator, let alone choose one religions God to be the true one.
The two definitions of omniscient each raise different problems, the former raises questions about God’s omnipotence, as one needs to assess if the laws of nature can limit an omnipotent God. The latter raises problems as, if He exists outside of time as an eternal creator and knows the past, present and future simultaneously, do we still have free will? Problems to God’s omniscience highlighted in Book 5 is Molina who states that God does not interfere with humans choices or decisions, but merely observes all possible outcomes and thus sees the past, present and future simultaneously, fitting with an eternal God. Aquinas gives the image of a man standing on a mountain and witnessing the whole road and everything that happens on it and the various paths we may take. However, it is important to note how the man on the mountain does not influence any choices and so just because one sees what is happening, this does not mean that it in any way influences the decisions made.
(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.)
Christianity Worldviews Origin-Genesis 1:1 shows God creating the heavens and the earth in the beginning. Christianity affirms that “God is the infinite, personal (triune), transcendent and immanent, omniscient, sovereign and good being who created the universe.” (James Sire, The Universe Next Door, p.23, 26). To say that God is infinite is to say that He is a necessary Being and there was never a time when God did not exist. God is transcendent in that He is not part of the creation, but separate from it. However, He is also immanent, in that He cares for His creation, enough to reveal Himself to mankind.
However, this would be absurd, seeing as that nothing greater than God can be conceived in anyway. So a being, which nothing greater can be conceived, God, does in fact exist. According to Joel Fienberg’s text, Reason and Responsibility, an Ontological argument is defined as “an argument for the existence of God stating that the very concept or definition of God automatically entails that God exists; because the special nature of the concept, there is no way that God could fail to exist” (pg. 722). This argument is formulated around the idea that God is a being, which no greater being can be conceived.
According to St. Anselm in his ontological argument, he describes God as an idea or concept of which nothing greater can be conceived (Living Issues in Philosophy, page 388). In this he guides thought by arguing “If the most perfect being existed only in thought and not in reality, then it would not really be the most perfect being. One that exists in the mind and in reality would be more perfect.” Anselm concludes his theory with “no one who understands what God is; can conceive that God does not exist. (A. J. Hoober). Existence is a part of perfection.
1. St. Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument on Possibility and Necessity presents God as the absolutely necessary being that ultimately explains the existence of individual contingent beings. The universe is contingent, even if it arguably is without a cause. Because of its contingency, God is the ultimate reason for the existence of the universe. 2.