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.
We need to investigate and see why it is valid or invalid. COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT On the subject of cosmological proof, God is the first cause. The universe is contingent because everything with in the universe is contingent, thus making the universe in need of a first cause (Foreman, 2012). McCloskey wrote that theists do not study or think far enough ahead to realize that one must be an existing being to be a first cause. “The first, or “no cause,” is a claim that some contingent objects have
The heart of Leibniz’s argument was that there must be a cause for the whole which explains the whole. Frederick Copleston would have disagreed with this statement because he believed that there has to be a necessary being which explains the contingent beings and this necessary being should contain within itself the reason for its own existence. Copleston would go on to say that this necessary being is God and God is therefore the explanation of the universe and how it came into existence. Hume would have agreed with this statement because he questioned the idea that everything has a cause. He claimed that
Soren Kierkegaard, a protestant Fideist, saw the biblical figure of Abraham as a hero and an example of the fideist position; this is because against all moral and ethical qualities, Abraham was willing to go against any kind of reason and sacrifice his own under the will of God. Strong rationalism and Fideism are the two extremes of each concept, the middle ground between those two is Critical Rationalism, believing that a balanced life allows for both reason and faith. Some things can be known by reason alone, whereas other things must be known by faith. History and reason through the bible will explain to us that Jesus lived and preached the kingdom of God, also performing
Supporters and Opponents of the Divine Command Theory The principal components of the Divine Command Theory (DCT) are: in first place, the believe that an almighty God responsible for the creation of everything exists and because of this we owe him obedience. Second, the believe that what is wrong or right is determined by God, meaning that what he approves is the right thing and what he disapproves is the wrong thing. What God approves and disapproves can be found in the Bible, specifically in the Ten Commandments, which are clear examples of the things that God wants us to do and the things that he forbids. According to Hoff & Sommers (2010), John Arthur critics various aspects of the DCT, within these critics the most important ones are: in first place, the difficulty of demonstrating that God even exists. Second, he asks the following question, if God created evil and goodness, why can he simply make evil disappear?
The argument from religious experience is an inductive, ‘a posteriori’ argument which claims that because God can be experienced, God must exist. It’s underpinned by testimonies of religious experiences that exist in which the person has claimed to have had experienced God. Consequently, this has led people to conclude that God must exist. In order to understand how this argument works, a comparison is required. For example, I am writing.
However, there are so many mysteries in the world that science cannot explain that many people believe something, a much larger force, must be behind it. As a result, many theologians have attempted to prove the existence of God. One of the strongest arguments for the existence of God is the Ontological position. Ontological arguments are “derived from some source, other than observation of the world, so from reason alone.” The first and best-known Ontological argument for the existence of God was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th Century. Anselm’s argument is based on the idea that anyone who hears about God or thinks about God, has an idea of who God is.
When it come free will God cannot make anything happen but he can influence it to happen. Process theology believes that the world is not identical with God even though God contains the world; God is changeable because he owns a changeable universe and the final belief is that mankind is not immortal but they can be immortal in God (Grenz, Olson, 1992). The core of Tillich’s theology is reason, revelation, symbol and Being and God, existence of Christ. The final concepts of Tillich’s theology are life in the Spirit, history and the Kingdom. When these two theologies are dissected one will realize that they have some connections.
Since the beginning of time, the idea of a God or a supreme being existing has been debated and argued. One argument that supports the existence of God is the Ontological Argument. An Ontological Argument is an argument for God’s existence that begins with the idea of supreme perfection or unsurpassable greatness. The Ontological Argument can also be seen as the idea that God has placed within us a knowledge that God exists and cares for us. Anselm (1033–1109) had opposed an Ontological Argument that one understands God as a being and cannot conceive anything greater because God cannot be understood not to exist.
Presented below will be both a brief explanation of the argument and a criticism that has been raised against the argument. The Ontological Argument was first formulated by Anslem. He begins with a reference to Psalm 14:1 (the fool hath said in his heart “there is no God”) and then presents the argument to the fool. What Anslem attempts to do with his argument is define God into existence with the use His revealed nature (ontology). Anslem starts by pointing out that God, by definition, is the greatest conceivable being (something than which nothing greater can be thought) which is agreed and understood by both believers and non-believers.