There is nothing wrong with this, except when it comes to the issue of believing in God. Zagzebski makes a compelling point by discussing how people who are given Pascal’s wager would be motivated to believe in God due to the infinite gain, which is basically an appeal to one’s self-interest. This brings up the fundamental issue I have with Pascal’s wager: if God were to appear before every non-believer’s eyes and tell them to believe in Him or suffer eternal damnation, would these people believe in God just to avoid going
Jesus was able to recognize and have compassion for us in our trials and temptations having been human he experienced the same temptations and trials we do. Thus His intercessory ministry would be reliant upon his humanity because if he was not human he would not be able to intercede for us, as a priest intercedes for those whom he represents (Erickson, 1984:706). Hebrews 4:15 “For we do not have a high priest who
The argument of religious experience as a proof of God is one that is based almost purely in synthetic statements and inductive reasoning to attempt to provide evidence for gods existence. this argument is an posteriori argument because of the fact that it requires the experience itself. The argument is also argued to glean empirical evidence through our senses, however on the flip side is sometimes said to be completely spiritual with no possible attempt for empirical reasoning. Swinburne's basic premise for religious experience goes as such: P1: Experience of x indicates reality of x. P2: Experience of god would therefore indicate the reality of God. P3: It is possible to have an experience of God.
It also allows human beings to get their minds around the fact that Gods knowledge and being is beyond anything our human minds can comprehend, let alone try to describe with ‘positive’ words. It is easy for us as human beings to believe in a God and portray God to be like us (anthropomorphism), but truthfully we do not know how he would appear, and this theory helps to convey the mysteriousness of God. Negative descriptions of God or divine Powers are literal fact and so are easily understood across cultures and time, because they never change and always remain fact, there is no confusion, however
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. The only way to have true wisdom is by the Spirit which is the Holy Ghost through Jesus Christ. “No one can know a person’s thoughts except that person’s own spirit, and no one can know God’s thoughts except God’s own Spirit. And we have received God’s Spirit (not the world’s spirit), so we can know the wonderful things God has freely giving us. (1 Corinthians 2:11-12 NLT).
Religious language is meaningful because we don’t know how to falsify it. John Hick mentioned religious language was seen as believing in something and experiencing something. The logical positivists formulated the verification principle and they were concerned with the meaning of words and the way we use them in the context of God. They believe God’s talk was meaningless as they are metaphysical statements. They believed for a statement to be deemed meaningful we had to be able to verify the truth hood through our empirical senses.
The counter argument to this though, is that animals do not fall under his jurisdiction and so the brutality that is nature is out of his control. God can only then make humans all good; which is apparent to be untrue (war, rape, murder.) In effect, Gould has showed that there could very validly be no active god. Whichever way a person’s belief systems lean, this paper by Stephen Jay Gould is a very insightful read into one way of thinking. Whether that means it solely educates those who firmly believe in god that there are other views, or it converts a person to non religious views, it is a worthwhile read.
He had answered many of my questions about my faith and what I believe is real. This does not mean that this book has changed my values and views of my religion, however has made me a more devote person to my religion. I agree with Paine as well that we are always contradicting ourselves. With my church group, we always say that we fit the Bible stories to fit and suit our need, but always show our true devotion. These stories are to be taken with a grain of salt and not to be take as seriously as they are being taken.
Anselm was attempting to prove that god existed “a priori,” or through reason alone. He argued that not everyone needed a personal experience with God to believe in him – God’s existence was a logical conclusion if you thought the argument through. Specifically Anselm aimed his argument at “The Fool.” This does not refer to any
Naturalist do not believe in more than just matter, they look at things as if I cannot see it then it is not there. However, as a Christians, I believe in more and I know our God is out there helping us through our lives. Naturalist look at us as machines that all of our emotions and such are just reactions in our brains, but Christians believe that everything we do is the creation of God. Secular humanist and Christians are so different I use my religion to help stay in line. Secular humanist feel that religion is really a negative thing because it gives you rules to follow therefore you never really follow your deepest desires.