Ad
related to: god's hiddenness arguments meaning
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The argument from reasonable nonbelief (or the argument from divine hiddenness) was first elaborated in J. L. Schellenberg's 1993 book Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason. This argument says that if God existed (and was perfectly good and loving) every reasonable person would have been brought to believe in God; however, there are reasonable ...
Deus revelatus (Latin: "revealed God") refers to the Christian theological concept coined by Martin Luther which affirms that the ultimate self-revelation of God relies on his hiddenness. It is the particular focus of Luther’s work the Heidelberg Theses of 1518, [ 1 ] presented during the Heidelberg disputation of 1518.
Deus absconditus (Latin: "hidden God") refers to the Christian theological concept of the fundamental unknowability of the essence of God. The term is derived from the Old Testament of the Christian Bible , specifically from the Book of Isaiah : "Truly, you are a God who hides himself, O God of Israel , the Savior" ( Isaiah 45:15 ).
Schellenberg's first book, Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason (Cornell University Press, 1993), developed the argument from divine hiddenness (or hiddenness argument) against the existence of a God. Discussion of Schellenberg's argument continues today, in academic journals, anthologies, and other books, as well as online. [5]
the hiddenness of God, which comes from our inability to survive the full revelation of God's glory and which forces us to seek to know God through faith and obedience; " Torah -mysticism", a view of God's laws as the central expression of God's will and therefore as worthy object not only of obedience but also of loving meditation and Torah ...
American philosopher of religion William L. Rowe notably believed that the structure of the ontological argument was such that it inherently begs the question of God's existence, that is to say, that one must have a presupposed belief in God's existence in order to accept the argument's conclusion. To illustrate this, Rowe devises the concept ...
The argument is extended to 'all the organized parts of the works of nature'. Paley considers whether chance alone could explain these, and concludes not. Chapter VI. The Argument cumulative No argument, writes Paley, other than 'the necessity of an intelligent Creator', can explain the eye (or any other elaborate living structure). Chapter VII.
The logical form of the argument tries to show a logical impossibility in the coexistence of a god and evil, [2] [10] while the evidential form tries to show that given the evil in the world, it is improbable that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and a wholly good god. [3]