Agreeing with the third choice allows the theist to avoid all problems associated with the other two. William Laine Craig asserts this, “the theist does not want to say that the God is good simply because God happens to approve of it, since this makes morality arbitrary. Nor does he want to say that God approves the Good because it is, in fact, good, since this seems to entail the existence of standards of goodness outside of God.” In other words, we do not want a standard that is arbitrary nor one that exists outside or above God. Christians should affirm both God's power and His goodness. Since God's nature itself can serve as the standard of goodness, one can simply say that God’s nature is then unchangeable and entirely good, His will is not arbitrary and that His declaration... ... middle of paper ... ...ts of the Bible and do not believe in others.
Descartes blames us and says that it is our errors and God has not given us defective faculties. It is the misuse of our freedom of will to assent to things, which we don’t perceive clearly or distinctly. In fact the lack or imperfection lies in the operation of the will and it is not due to the faculties, which we have received from God. Descartes proved the existence of God by saying that since existence is inseparable from God, he really exists and God can never deceive. Works Cited Descartes, Rene.
Strengths Nash did not support Inclusivism but he still was able to point out the following strengths in the Inclusivism argument. Even with these strengths me maintained his stand for exclusivism. 1) The Old Testament Saints The time in the bible, when God was seen to be talking to people the most, was in the old test... ... middle of paper ... ...as caused by the divine and perfect plan of God who perceives the “end from the beginning” and performs “all things in accordance with the counsel of His will.” Christian Exclusivism does not have to be confirmed to be perfectly rational, but only more rational than any other is and when compare with inclusivism, Christian Exclusivism gives the stronger argument. The blue print for religion was given in the Bible. It is seen the bible that God is sovereign no one can question Him.
Anselm says of God: “We believe that you are something than which nothing greater can be thought.” (Cottingham, 1996: 246) We can put this in shorthand by saying that Anselm understands God to be the greatest conceivable being -- the GCB, for short Now you might protest that you do not use the word "God" in this way. Nevertheless, that does not really matter. If Anselm can show that such a being exists, then he has shown something remarkable whatever you call the being. Furthermore, it is not clear why anyone should resist calling such a being God. Now another worry may occur to you: conceivable by whom?
This does not mean that He is infinite. Some Christians have said that God is infinite, but this concept cannot be supported biblically. The only characteristic of God described as infinite is His knowledge or understanding. Therefore, the argument does not hold, since the God of Christianity is not described as infinite. It is for this reason the ontological argument can fail as a theistic proof however it is not an easy answer to the question as it holds both 'for' and 'against' reasoning for the theistic proof in the existence of God.
Fundamentalism is an espresso shot of Christianity—strong, bitter, and undiluted. Fundamentalists believe the Bible should be interpreted as literal fact, not metaphorically. To them, it is God’s direct word to humanity and the ultimate earthly authority. And so fundamentalists follow the Bible with unwavering certainty, as if it were God himself, and press their interpretation of the book upon society. But the certainty at fundamentalism’s core is unwarranted, leading them to wrongfully ignore their oppositions’ own valid opinions and the potential gains that come with them.
In The Summa Theologica St. Thomas Aquinas addresses some of these objections, the most telling of which can be restated as: (I) To sin is an action, however god is unable to sin. Therefore god cannot be omnipotent. (ii) The greatest act possible of god is his practice of "sparing and having mercy". There are actions judged to be much greater however, such as creating a world. Therefore god is not omnipotent.
The last part about the exact parameters of God is exactly what makes this concept of God so hard to prove. The consensus definition for God is that regardless of religion, it is a personal being who is omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent as well as being the creator of the universe. The first viewpoint on this idea is brought about by St. Thomas Aquinas who uses the Cosmological argument to prove his way. In general, this approach bases a lot of it’s standing on the fact that things exist and trying to see why they exist. It also includes the principle of sufficient reason which states that there must be an answer to general questions about why things exist and sometimes that anything at all is positive.
There are two types of theology discussed in chapter nine of Kessler “Voices of Wisdom,” revealed and natural theology. Revealed theology comes from such sources as the Bible and according to St. Thomas Aquinas gives us the knowledge for our salvation. Natural theology supports my argument on a level that someone who does not believe in God can understand better. This kind of theology defines God’s nature and provides for his existence. St. Thomas tells us that natural theology does not give us saving knowledge, because even if you know God exists does not mean you have salvation.
Here we touch on an important point, namely that it is best to keep the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture. We must admit , therefore, the limits of our human language to talk about things so high , beyond our crisis, our understanding . The Trinity is not a biblical teaching , how is she become a doctrine of Christianity? For many, it was mad... ... middle of paper ... ...the world . God is seen as the Supreme Being in the world in Christianity and other religions.