Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
He suggested that people cannot know the nature of God and, therefore, cannot conceive of God in the way Anselm proposed. [72] The ontological argument would be meaningful only to someone who understands the essence of God completely. Aquinas reasoned that, as only God can completely know His essence, only He could use the argument. [73]
God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist." A more elaborate version was given by Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716); this is the version that Gödel studied and attempted to clarify with his ontological argument.
For the God who created and upholds the universe was not created – he is eternal. He was not 'made' and therefore subject to the laws that science discovered; it was he who made the universe with its laws. Indeed, that fact constitutes the fundamental distinction between God and the universe. The universe came to be, God did not.
Their knowledge and familiarity within a given field or area of knowledge command respect and allow their statements to be criteria of truth. A person may not simply declare themselves an authority, but rather must be properly qualified. Despite the wide respect given to expert testimony, it is not an infallible criterion. For example, multiple ...
He argued that abstaining from making a wager is not an option and that "reason is incapable of divining the truth"; thus, a decision of whether to believe in the existence of God must be made by "considering the consequences of each possibility".
Name: Each Way concludes not with "It is proven" or "therefore God exists" etc., but with a formulation that "this everyone understands as God" or "to which everyone gives the name of God" or "this all men speak of as God" or "this being we call God", etc. In other words, the Five Ways do not attempt to prove God exists, they attempt to ...
First, Schellenberg says that he has given known reasons to think that a perfectly loving being would always be open to a personal relationship; ipso facto, God would not sacrifice some time in the relationship for the sake of unknown greater goods, [21] and if the greatest good for finite creatures is to be in a relationship with God, then God ...
4. We have good reason to accept naturalism only if it can be rationally inferred from good evidence. 5. Therefore, there is not, and cannot be, good reason to accept naturalism. [1] In short, naturalism undercuts itself. If naturalism is true, then we cannot sensibly believe it or virtually anything else.