Attributes Of God Within Classical Christian Theism

Philosophers have for long debated on the existence of a Supreme all powerful and all perfect God, Kant, and Anselm being among them. Where Anselm has supported the presence of God and all the attributes that regard to the Him, Kant has risen up with a counter argument. The interaction between the two, the philosophical objection raised by Kant, and what this means to the rest of mankind will be analyzed in this paper.

In the construction of the Large Hardon Collider, physicists seek and hope to unlock the mysteries of the universe by analyzing the attributes of the most miniscule particles known to man. In the same way, theologians have argued back and forth over the course of human history with regards to the divine attributes of God, seeking and hoping to unlock the mysteries of the metaphysical universe. Although these many attributes, for example omnipresence, could be debated and dissected ad nauseum, it is within the scope of this research paper to focus but on one of them. Of these many divine attributes of God, nothing strikes me as more intriguing than that of God’s omnipotence. It is intriguing to me because the exploration of

A theist believes in all-powerful Holy God(s). He believes that God(s) created the universe and also that we have a soul that lives eternally, either in heaven or hell. The big difference whether they believe Jesus is the Messiah. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all considered monotheistic faiths, believing in one Supreme Being, but there are great differences. First, there’s the Trinity. Christians believe God exists in three distinct persons, the others only believe that God is one person. Christian’s believe the second person in the Trinity is Jesus is actually God sent to this earth or

This essay features the discussion of the problem of evil in relation to the existence of god. Specifically outlining two sections where the problem of evil is discussed from atheist and theistic viewpoint.

The traditional God in the Judeo-Christian tradition is known to be as an “Omni-God” possessing particular divine attributes such as omniscient, which means he knows everything he is also omnipotent, or all powerful. God has also been said to be also he is omnipresence which means he exists in all places and present everywhere, however there are many philosophical arguments on whether if any of that is actually true or if there is a God at all. This paper argues that it is not possible to know whether the traditional God exists or not. While there have been philosophers such as Aquinas, Anselm, Paley and Kierkegaard who are for god and present strong argument, likewise philosopher like Nietzsche and arguments like the problem of evil both make valid point on why God isn’t real.

Anselm’s Ontological Argument argues for the existence of an all-perfect God. The Ontological Argument assumes that Existence is a great making property. Critiques of Anselm and his version of the Ontological Argument argue that existence is not a great making property. If the critics are correct, they have completely bested Anselm, and destroyed his argument. In this essay, I will argue on behalf of Anselm’s argument and defend existence as a great making property.

In the book, The Universe Next Door, by James W. Sire he talks about both theism and deism and explains their similarities and differences through a series of worldview questions. According to Sire, a theistic

Most religious zealots have no doubt about who created and the source of the origin of the universe. The same is true of the existence of the omnipotent, omniscience and omnipresent God. Although God may not be seen or heard or touched, however; by faith, we believe of his majestic existence. His existence as God cannot be measured in terms of Gallup surveys or scientific proofs to show otherwise but “religious thinkers” according to James and Stuart Rachels have offered numerous thesis for the for the existence of God, starting with the argument from design, with its subtitles such as the wonders of nature; the “best-explanation arguments and the same-evidenced argument” (Rachels). In either of the cases, the conclusions drawn were similar in the sense that the universe was created by an intelligent designer.

Also he believes that, theism is morally unacceptable or bad, reason, because he thinks that God is basically using us to fulfill his purpose of creation in life,thereby, reducing us to just mere means or absolute nothing by failing

In this paper, I am going to present an objection to the “divine argument” explained above. An obvious objection to this argument is that it begs the question of its readers, as it forces them to accept the fact that God exists. If one does not accept this fact, then the entire argument is rendered unusable. However, this objection is, quite frankly, boring, and so I shall attempt to give a more nuanced objection. I believe that line 3, which discusses how nobody can change the past, is actually false. Additionally, the inference from premise 7 to the conclusion is false, which renders the argument invalid.

McCloskey aims to the point that theists try to claim their arguments as proof that God does exist. However, the role the theists mainly plays is that of showing the possibility that God does exists

In her book Perfect Being Theology, Katherin A. Rogers wrote, “None of us can comprehend the intrinsic being of God.” A truer word might never have been spoken with such brevity. Yet, theologians and philosophers find themselves contemplating not only the existence of God, but also what constitutes God as “God”. During such conversations, God is conceived as a perfect being (or the best possible being). God as the perfect being dates to pre-Socratic philosophy, and the idea became permanently a part of Christian theology since Augustine, if not before him. Anselm of Canterbury, being highly influence by Augustine, became one of the first examples to produce a “clear and systematic attempt at a perfect being theology.” On account of this, it remains imperative for modern day theologians (and students!) to critically reflect on Anselm’s conception of God. Thus, this paper will be an engagement with Anselm’s perfect being theology by 1) sketching the major tenets of Anselm’s perfect being theology, 2) asserting some of the merits of his theology, 3) exposing a pitfall of his perfect being theology, 4) giving a rebuttal of said pitfall, and 5) closing on the success of Anselmian perfect being theology.

Medieval philosophers developed very precise notions of God and the attributes that he has, many of which are even now well-known among believers. For example, God is all-powerful all-knowing and all-good Other commonly discussed attributes of God are that he is eternal, that he is present everywhere and that he has foreknowledge of future events. While these traditional attributes of God offer a clear picture of the kind of being that he is, many of them present special conceptual problems, particularly when we try to make them compatible them with potentially conflicting facts about the world.

Richard Swinburne brings up this topic in his works Revelation. Swinburne is a strong repusenitive of rational theism. Some have giving him the complement of being "perhaps the most significant proponent of argumentative theism today" and "one of the foremost rational Christian apologists." Since he is of such high praise for his works, it makes since that his ‘Revelation’ is full of insightful and full of rich meaning.

played an integral role in shaping religious conceptions of many people –both of theists and of