Furthermore he is completely illogical. An omnipotent and omniscient God is an unlikelihood. He is either unable to create an impossible task for himself or is unable to perform it once created, because it's impossible! If God knows the past, present and future, these states are known quantities and God is unable to change them, and is therefore not omnipotent. If they are subject to change, then God cannot know them with certainty, and is not omniscient.
Aquinas also presented an objection to Anselm’s ontological argument. He argued that the ontological argument is invalid as we cannot define God ‘for the human mind does not have an intuition of the essence of God’. Aquinas rejects that there can be
This does not convince however that God does not exist because evil is necessary for the good. This means evil is needed in a perfect universe. The combination of the convincing arguments for God’s
Hence, it doesn’t exist. Following the above, everything God creates is therefore perfect, hence omnipotent, a quality coherent to the attributes of the god of theism. Again, Augustine attempts to take the blame off God by saying that evil is committed by humanity’s abuse of free will. Yet, God couldn’t have created humans without free will because the point of our existence would be lost, as free will differentiates humans and gives us individuality – it gives our life meaning and purpose. If we were not given free will, the lack of freedom and choice would render us similar to robots.
Descartes wonders if God deceives him or not. Which God cannot do because he is the Ultimate and would not do that to something he created. Descartes states “the desire to deceive without doubt testifies to malice or feebleness, and accordingly cannot be found in God” (73). So God does have power and some people believe that a man of power will use his power to deceive, but the fact that something wants to deceive and show God to be a coward. God cannot be a coward because he is the Supreme.
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).
Most scientists argue that "God" is not a scientifically proven cause, whereas Aristotle would argue that God is ‘a remote and unchanging being who allows his world to be changeable so that it can gradually move towards the perfection which he already enjoys.’ A further fault with this would be the principle that the universe can’t explain its own existence, Why is it here at all? Why is it like this? Why isn’t it different? Why something rather than nothing?. Critics such as Dawkins and Russell say the universe is here today due to ‘brute fact’ whereas Swinburne would argue highly with that and say ‘God is simpler than anything we could imagine and gives an explanation for the system’.
Moral Relativism&Plato’s Euthyphro The idea that the truth is relative is that what is true for me is true for me and what is true for you is true for you. For instance person one believes in the existence of god. Person two believes there is no god at all. If the truth were relative that would mean Person one’s reality is that god exisitses and person two’s reality is that god does not exist. Both of them would be right because the truth is relative to what they believe.
The word “good” in reference to God is meaningless as we cannot know what this entails; it is completely different from saying “the man is good”. According to the Via Negativa, to say “God is good” limits God’s goodness because it puts a human idea of goodness in our minds. Similarly if we talk about God being all-knowing, we can debate what this means but ultimately we cannot know for certain what it means to be all-knowing. The only things we can be certain of about God is what God is not; for example God is not evil. There are strengths to this theory, for instance it prevents us from making anthropomorphic statements about God, meaning we are not left with an inadequate image of God.
In J.P. Moreland’s, Christianity and the Nature of Science, he discusses some of the basic presuppositions of science and points out how science alone is unable to explain the universe. 3 Therefor, nonbelievers contradict themselves by believing the universe has a natural cause despite the lack of observational evidence to support their theory. Moreland seems to wish for a world in which religion and science can completely understand each other, however it might be a detriment to Christian faith if such were true. The majority of the Bible depicts natural occurring events, however the Christian God is capable of miracles and phenomena that should not be understood further than His all-knowing wisdom and power. Therefor, the Christian response to scientific investigation should be to examine and understand to the extent of