Questions On Natural Knowledge Of God

1. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of the argument for the existence of God based on religious experience. (18) 2. ‘The argument merely indicates the probability of God and this is of little value to a religious believer.’ Discuss. (12)

God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist The existence or otherwise of God has attracted a seeming countless debates from all classes of people mainly academics, comprising theologians, scientists and philosophers, not to mention laypersons. Consequently, this singular topic has generated many publications and reviews. Of particular interest are the two opposing views brilliantly presented by William Lane Craig, a popular Christian philosopher and apologist who is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Professor of Philosophy at Dartmouth College. There had been intense rounds of debate on the subject, prominent among which were the one at Dartmouth in 1999 and another at Wooddale Church in 2000. William Lane Craig believes, and firmly too, that God exists while Walter Sinnott-Armstrong would always want to convince his listeners that He does not. These opposing views and more are taken up in the 2003 popular and unique book, God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist. The uniqueness of the book, and in fact, its greatest strength can be found in the fact that it was co-authored by opponents, a christian and an atheist. What makes the book more interesting is that it represents the results of an actual debate, where each side not only presents its succinct and polite views but has the chance to actively respond to its opponent with some succinct theological and philosophical sophistication. While they arrive

One burning and enduring problem in philosophy to which we have given considerable examination is the question of the existence of God--the superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. After reading the classic arguments of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against God's existence that have been put into text. All of them are well-thought and well-articulated arguments, but they have their holes. The question of God's true existence, therefore, is still not definitively answered and put to rest; the intensity of this

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.

Scientific reasoning has brought humanity to incredibly high levels of sophistication in all realms of knowledge. For Saint Thomas Aquinas, his passion involved the scientific reasoning of God. The existence, simplicity and will of God are simply a few topics which Aquinas explores in the Summa Theologica. Through arguments entailing these particular topics, Aquinas forms an argument that God has the ability of knowing and willing this particular world of contingent beings. The contrasting nature of necessary beings and contingent beings is at the heart of this debate.

1. “I no longer thought God was the creeks rising from the wood floor. I knew God was found in prayer, not in the sudden closing of the hallways door just as you stepped from the bathroom. But when I was a boy with squares of black space instead of baby teeth when the door closed with a sigh, I thought, that God. God made that happen.” (Page 2)

No open report gives more unmistakable quality to the possibility of common law, nor depends all the more urgently upon regular law as a reason, than the Declaration of Independence. To comprehend why this is so and what it implies for American constitutionalism requires perusing the content of the Declaration in its political, recorded, and philosophical connection.

The framers of the constitution were purposefully vague in the wording of many articles throughout the constitution. As a significant portion of the constitution’s framers were themselves lawyers, I believe this deliberate vagueness was an effort to prevent the spirit of the document from becoming lost in the semantics of verbatim analysis so often favored by barristers and politicians. This necessitates that we look at other works of the time to help us in interpreting the framers intent. To these ends constitutional scholars, the federal courts and laymen alike have relied heavily on the Federalist Papers for additional insight

John Locke’s influence on the United States could not be made more evident than the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Residing in our country’s declaration of independence is the original stamp of John Locke’s philosophy, now we will consider if loyalties to this philosophy have similarly influenced the United States constitution. In an attempt to do this I will look at arguments made by Publius, an advocate for the constitution, and an antagonist named the Farmer. This I hope will help us contextualize the arguments surrounding the constitution during the time of its ratification. John Locke in his Second Treatise on government outlined many principles for good government, and I would like to focus on three.

The central problem of this paper that I am going to try to convince my atheist friend is that god existed. I will argue in favor of a higher being by first presenting and evaluating two argument that will be used to persuade my atheist friend. First I will explain Pascal’s argument. Second I will explain one of the arguments of Aquinas’s that is in favor of the existence of god. Then I am going to explain what’s the central difference between the two arguments is. I will conclude by stating whether I was successful in converting my atheist friend.

The aim of this essay will be to provide a sufficient illustration of the inadequacies present within Justice Gibson’s dissenting opinion in response to Eakin V. Raub, making his critique of Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion concerning Marbury v. Madison and its establishment of judicial review deficient in its purpose. Through a brief summarization of the cases, paired with a comparative analysis of both abovementioned opinions, this dissertation will intend on challenging the commonly held notion of stark confrontation between the assumptions of both men by demonstrating the relative consistencies present in both assessments regarding their respective cases, while also illustrating the intellectual deficiencies present in Gibson’s dissent. In doing so, the argument presented below will clearly clarify the ineffectiveness of Gibson’s rebutting appraisal of Marshall’s interpretation of the Constitutions consignment of judicial review.

Sir Thomas Aquinas and William Paley present two arguments for the existence of God. Aquinas defines God as omnibenevolent (all good) for his argument, and he continues in “The Five Ways” to present arguments to prove God’s existence (Rosen et al. 11). Paley, on the other hand, primarily defines God as a designer worthy of our admiration for his work (Rosen et al. 27). During class discussion, defining God involved three major qualities: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Both Aquinas and Paley are attempting to prove the existence of the (Christian) God associated with these qualities. Although Aquinas’s “Cosmological Argument” and Paley’s “Argument from Design” have different premises, both have a similar logical gap in their

Most major arguments of God are rooted in the existence, or lack thereof. However there has been a continuous debate regarding the specific characteristics of God. In this debate, Charles Hartshorne, Alfred North Whitehead, and other the processed theologians oppose Anselm, Augustine, and other classic theologians. Although there are many points of disagreement, there are some characteristics for which both sides can agree upon. I will show one strong point of agreement and one strong point of opposition, and allow you the opportunity to decide for yourself how different, or similar, these two camps are.

The concept of God is central to the development of Cartesian and Spinozan philosophy. Although both philosophers employ an ontological argument for the existence and necessity of God the specific nature of God differs greatly with each account. While Descartes suggests a Judeo-Christian concept of God, Spinoza argues a more monistic deity similar to that of the Hindu tradition. The most significant difference however, lies within the basis and structure of each argument itself. Considered from an analytical standpoint through the lens of Gotlobb Frege, Descartes' proof of God possesses both sense and reference and is therefore capable of expressing the

For centuries The Five Ways, drawn from St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica have been studied, scrutinized, and at the epicenter of heated debate.