Unreserved evidences from the text itself provide the clear set of evidence that God is in fact behind the scenes preserving and sheltering His people. Several other definite items such as literary structure, writi... ... middle of paper ... ...tector, guardian and saviour. The absence of the name of God’s name and the non-religious character of the book daunts many scholars in collaborating theological connection of the text with the rest of the Old Testament books. The absence of God’s name from the text should not raise a question on the authenticity of the text’s canonicity. Even though early Jewish scholars, Christian church fathers and various Biblical and theological scholars have questioned the validity of the book it still creates dilemma for the contemporary scholars.
Regrettably, it is shatteringly obvious to me that the nature of God centered on sightless trust is no longer an appropriate custom to adhere to. Throughout my analysis, I had expected to discover some way of proof to keep the direction of trust in God drilled into me by my religion. Sadly, this was not the case; the ontological and teleological arguments never connected the perceived world with a supreme God. On one hand, the teleological argument developed misguided results from analogies of scientific statements and materialists offered solutions, which may be rationally legitimate. On the other hand, the ontological argument was unsuccessful since it was misleading due to terms that could not broaden into truth.
The origin in the context of verse 21 is clear that Peter is speaking that Scripture originated from God Himself and not the credentials of the one who interprets it. There is no private source for the Bible; the prophets did not supply their own solutions or explanations to the mysteries of life. Rather, God spoke through them He alone is responsible for what is written in Scripture. This is why Christians should study the Bible diligently. For it is God’s written Word.
However, Evans and Manis suggest there are beings in this world that are unaware of how they came to exist. These beings are often contingent on another being. Th... ... middle of paper ... ...were made to always do what is right then free will would truly not exist. It is evident that McCloskey’s arguments in an attempt to disprove the existence of God lacks evidence. He disputes the existence of God based on a lack of undisputable evidence, but he provides no undisputable evidence to counter this existence.
Aquinas first way suggested thing in motion are put in motion something. Big Bang itself was a movement and god could not have set this motion himself, because it would mean god was put in motion by a something else in motion. By changing the conclusions for the cosmological argument to logically follow the premises would make it valid. Rather than forcing god as a conclusion, keeping an open mind and proposing counter arguments help us understand the possibilities out there. Maybe there is no god at all and the universe was always existed.
Infinity makes it impossible to have a first efficient cause, but if there is no first cause, there would be no intermediate cause (universe), and we (nature) would not exist. In the ontological argument, St Anselm provides an argument that is based on logic. In order to understand his argument you must first ... ... middle of paper ... ... should be like (beliefs) in order to fill the Gap of the unknown with ideas about God. Having Faith would make reason understand God. Doubt exists in the believer and the non-believer because it is beyond our reason to determine the truth of God's existence.
This is because the writer references Jesus as being a light. Only John's Gosp... ... middle of paper ... ...ng how Christianity would be different if the Gospel of Thomas were in the New Testament is impossible to answer because no one could say in regards to the details. However, it would be safe to say that Christianity as we know it would not exist. The Bible would now contain opposing teachings on salvation. This kind of contradiction would certainly lead to confusion and distrust in the veracity of any of the Gospel accounts.
When you go through McCloskey’s argument it shows many flaws in his reasoning as he wanted to show that it is impossible that there is a God. Throughout McCloskey’s article he refers to that theist do not a proofs that there is a God, thus they should not be used. The problem with this is that atheist and theist would have to purge of most of their arguments for the reason that most everything does not prove the argument. McCloskey is correct that the “proofs” do not completely establish that there is a God, but they do give us a better understanding about the world and if there is a God. The cosmological and the teleological arguments are only argument, thus they do not completely prove that there is a God as Dr. Foreman says, “that these argument give us a best explanation” (Foreman).
The first rule of philosophical discourse is clarity and since God is the main topic, there is no way in which we should avoid discussing the ontological argument. Actually, McCloskey’s failure to analyze the ontological argument is one of the reasons why he failed to understand the theists’ arguments. The diversity of religious beliefs scattered in the world is not aiding the theistic endeavor. It has further complicated the defenses used by theists all over the world. Fortunately, Evans clarified some misconceptions about the characteristics of God in his article.
Instead of making his presence known only to his supporters, when resurrected from the dead, Jesus could have showed up to many and other individuals. Perhaps most distinctively Pontius Pilate, Emperor Ti... ... middle of paper ... ..., both that God cannot have inconsistent wants and that for God nothing is difficult, which seems to be a contradiction. But the more primary problem in the discussion is that it translates nothing is impossible for God in an unlimited way. However, how can we possibly ever know if or how the rules of rational logic apply to a ruler of the universe? Works Cited Drange, Theodore, “McHugh’s Expectations Dashed” from Philo, Vol.5(2):242-248 Drange, Theodore, “The Argument from Non-Belief” from Religious Studies, Vol.29(1993): 417-432 The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica.