Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In a 2014 article, philosopher Justin McBrayer argued we ought to remain agnostic about the existence of God but nonetheless believe because of the good that comes in the present life from believing in God. "The gist of the renewed wager is that theists do better than non-theists regardless of whether or not God exists." [56]
Likewise, God cannot make a being greater than himself, because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being. God is limited in his actions to his nature. The Bible, in passages such as Hebrews 6:18, says it is "impossible for God to lie". [9] [10] A good example of a modern defender of this line of reasoning is George Mavrodes. [11]
Gödel's ontological proof is a formal argument by the mathematician Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) for the existence of God.The argument is in a line of development that goes back to Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109).
The Kalam cosmological argument was influenced by the concept of the prime mover, introduced by Aristotle.It originates in the works of theologian and philosopher John Philoponus (490–570 AD) [10] and was developed substantially under the medieval Islamic scholastic tradition during the Islamic Golden Age.
This is an accepted version of this page This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 24 December 2024. Philosophical question Part of a series on Theism Types of faith Agnosticism Apatheism Atheism Classical theism Deism Henotheism Ietsism Ignosticism Monotheism Monism Dualism Monolatry Kathenotheism Omnism Pandeism Panentheism Pantheism Polytheism Transtheism Specific conceptions ...
Other means of reconciling God's omniscience with human free will have been proposed. Some have attempted to redefine or reconceptualize free will: God can know in advance what I will do, because free will is to be understood only as freedom from coercion, and anything further is an illusion.
Credo quia absurdum is a Latin phrase that means "I believe because it is absurd", originally misattributed to Tertullian in his De Carne Christi.It is believed to be a paraphrasing of Tertullian's "prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est" which means "it is completely credible because it is unsuitable", or "certum est, quia impossibile" which means "it is certain because it is impossible".
On the other hand, he also rejected the idea that God's existence cannot be demonstrated: although it is impossible to give a so-called propter quid demonstration, going from the causes to the effects; still, the proposition God exists can be "demonstrated" from God's effects, which are more known to us, through a so-called quia demonstration. [3]