We do not know if Jesus actually considered taking Satan’s offers. To say that Jesus was tempted by Satan’s offers is to say that Jesus sinned. John 3:5 says that Jesus came to save us from sin and never sinned himself.2 This Bible passage proves that Jesus was not tempted by Satan’s offers because he was incapable of sin. The third and final part of this objection against the divinity of Jesus says that Jesus cannot be God if the last two parts of the objection are true. The first two parts of this objection and be proven false through sc... ... middle of paper ... ...dditionally, by this statement Jesus was not opposing to his divine nature but instead, simply stating and reassuring the fact he was also man.
The controversy is: Jesus didn’t have to say the specific words “I am God,” to claim this. Jesus did, however,... ... middle of paper ... ...between the ways of God and the ways of Satan. We cannot trust society, or others to tell us differently. Paul writes, “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 2:3-5).
Anselm and Descartes do not fully provide evidence to prove that they have this clear idea of God. It is very much possible that this is completely false and then both arguments would be incorrect from the start. However, despite this I still believe Descartes argument is more persuasive, and one reason is because Anselm’s argument is very vague. For instance, Anselm never explains what it means for one thing to be ‘greater’ than something else. This definition is necessary in order to agree with Anselm’s premise that there exists things in reality which are greater than things that only reside in the understanding.
In the article by P. T. Greach, Omnipotence, we are faced with the issue of whether God, by the Christian understanding of him, is omnipotent, or almighty, by the true definitions of the word and the English understandings of them. He proves the statement that God is omnipotent, meaning that he can do anything at all, is false. HE proves this statement by using many examples from both the importance of the stability of the Christian belief, and by making statements that are contradictory to the entire view of the concept of God. Being that God's promise to the race of man is deliverance from this Earth to eternal life in Heaven, and that there is an afterlife for man. By this statement of the perfection, being the lack if imperfections, or rather the omnipotence being the lack of impotence is false because God can not break his promise, and he can not lie, or the entire religion of Christianity falls out beneath them.
Others would claim either that God does not exist or that God is not what the Christians, Jews, and Muslims say He is. Both Anselm and Aquinas address this question: Anselm in his "Proslogion" and Aquinas in his "Summa Theologica." The opinions of Anselm and Aquinas as to the nature of God are the same, although Anselm lacks the proof to back up his claims. In the "Proslogion," Anselm states that God is "something greater that which we can conceive of nothing." This very confusing statement, which is likely illogical in itself, is the center of Anselm's illogical argument, and something that I will try to explain.
He attempts to show that the position of the fool -- the non-believer who has said in his heart, "There is no God" -- is incoherent and leads to absurdity. (Cottingham, 1996: 246) How does Anselm's reductio work? A fully satisfactory answer to this question is not exactly simple. The idea appears to be this: The argument depends on a definition of sorts. 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.
This idea of Barth is more persuasive because deriving the truth of theology from ontology or anthropology would mean that our knowledge of theology comes from human experience and not from the God himself. We cannot know about the God unless the God reveals it to us through Holy Spirit. Rahner also states that grace is a “constituent part” of our existence. But then Barth correctly states that if we have grace then why do we have to look beyond ourselves to Christ to know about sin and salvation. Barth is also more persuasive about the rejection of the idea of “anonymous Christianity”.
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.
This process can continue ad infinitum It also follows that God, not as benevolent as could be hoped, prefers the maximization of good (2) as opposed to the minimization of evil (1). This is disquieting for the individual who might be the victim of suffering a “greater good.” It appears that the problem of evil is a substantial one. While arguments exist that can challenge assumptions of the problem, it sometimes requires some definition contorting and does not answer all the challenges evil presents. The greater good defense presents some key insights into how we must perceive God’s actions but does not completely defend against the presented problems of evil. Therefore, a more plausible defense is needed to eliminate the problems evil creates with the Judeo-Christian concept of God.
He criticises and successfully attacks the Cartesian version that in order for there to be a ‘supreme being’, existence must be predicate of God (the supreme being). Norman Malcolm then tried to save this argument by coming up with an argument which Davis seems to have demolished successfully. Although the argument does not seem to remain too strong in the light of these responses, we can say that although Anselm failed to show ‘the fool’ that God existed, he by acquiring more knowledge and understanding about the Christian beliefs seems to fortify his faith as a believer. Anselm’s second form of the argument seems has kept philosophers interested and fascinated with it throughout time. The very fact that philosophers such as Descartes, Kant, Malcolm have been intrigued by the ontological argument strongly shows that it is a very important and complex argument which is in favour of the existence of God.