Skeptical Assault Upon The Knowledge Of God Summary

Malala Yousafzai, 18 year old Nobel Prize winner and women’s rights activist, once exclaimed: “I raise up my voice- not so I can shout, but so that those without a voice can be heard...we cannot succeed when half of us are held back”. The idea of speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves is extremely important when it comes to striving for change, so being able to express the needs of marginalized people is a great and awesome power. Yousafzai’s quote specifically connects to women’s rights, therefore it can be used to support the feminist movement seeing as she is advocating for the equality, in treatment and opportunity, of men and women. Feminist beliefs do not only apply to society, but to theology as well, seeing as the teachings of the bible are extremely influential in the day to day lives and values of religious people. The text that I chose to highlight this idea comes from Elizabeth A. Johnson’s book Quest for the Living God, chapter 5 ‘God Acting Womanish’ because it directly connects spirituality and feminism.

The film God on Trial explores the controversy behind the existence of God and his goodness, in terms of the Jewish people and the Holocaust. One argument that is presented is that God cannot exist because he allowed the suffering of the Jews, despite the covenant that they shared; and if God did exist, then he could not possibly be good for the same reason. The other side of the trial that is presented is that God does exist, suffering is merely a test, and through faith the Jews and the Torah will prevail as shown in history. In actuality, this argument can be summed up in one sentence: God cannot be both all powerful and just. If God were all powerful then He would be able to put an end to suffering, and because he does not, He is not

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

Have you ever had a feeling of doubt? In the play Doubt by John Patrick Shanley the reader is left with a lot of doubt because Father Flynn, one of the main characters, is being persecuted for sexually harassing a young boy in his class. In this play a pastor by the name of Father Flynn is being investigated because Sister Aloysius is suspicious that he has been sexually harassing a young boy by the name of Donald in their school. Based on the evidence in Patrick Shanley’s play, Doubt: A Parable, I conclude that Father Flynn is not guilty, because Sister A does not like Flynn and Sister A doubts all of her wrong doings after all of this commotion. There are also a lot of small reasons why he should be not guilty.

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

In the study of Christian theology, scripture plays an essential role in the revelation of the Doctrine of God. Scriptures are “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) words, written by the Holy Spirit through divine inspiration of prophets. They are necessary for the proper understanding of the doctrine of God, the self-revelation of God, the proof of God’s existence, and for the discernment of false doctrines.

In the article “ On Being an Atheist,” H.J. McCloskey attempts to inform his readers that the belief in atheism is a “much more comfortable belief” by effectively using a disdainful rhetoric towards theists and their faith. McCloskey delves into both the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, which within he criticizes the arguments and to further his argument against theism, he also presents the Problem of Evil and why evil cannot possibly exist with a perfect God being the creator of universe. What will be displayed in this essay are the counter-arguments to McCloskey’s criticisms and the attempt to discredit his claims that regard the “comfortable” position that lies within atheism and its arguments.

Following in the steps of the first defense is one that seeks to disprove Descartes’ second premise: in order to know that God exists, one must first have a certainty that what they perceive is truly knowledge. Van Cleve sheds some light on this by

The Will to Believe is a lecture that was presented by William James in 1896, it specifically defends that one can choose to believe in a religion without prior evidence of its truth. William James was a well-distinguished philosopher as well as a psychologist and a physician. He with a few other philosophers like Charles sanders Pierce and John Dewey were fundamental in establishing modern philosophy in America and are thought to be the founding fathers of pragmatism.

The debate of the existence of God had been active since before the first philosopher has pondered the question. Anselm’s Ontological Argument was introduced during the 11th century and had stood deductively valid until the 18th century. Then there are the arguments to aim disprove God, such as the Argument from Evil.

The Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes is a thorough analysis about doubt. Descartes describes his method of doubt to determine whether he can truly know something. One of his major arguments is the proof of the existence of God. In this paper, I will attempt to unravel the flaws in Descartes proof that God exists.

Descartes’ first meditation, his main objective is to present three skeptical arguments to bring doubt upon what he considers his basic beliefs. Descartes believes this to be an intricate part of his complete epistemological argument. Descartes skeptical arguments are not intended to be a denial of his basic beliefs. On the contrary, he uses these arguments to help prove one of his main theses, which is the existence of God. One of the main premises that Descartes uses in his proof for the existence of God comes from the evil demon argument, which he proposed, in the first meditation. It is this evil demon argument, which will be the topic of the following discussion.

a) Christians believe many different things about God’s nature; due to the huge spectrum of Christians that there are. However, as a general rule they perceive God as being one of the following four things:

Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) contains six Meditations. In the first two of these Descartes addresses doubt and certainty. By the end of the second Meditation Descartes establishes the possibility of certainty by concluding that he is a “thinking thing” and that this is beyond doubt. Having established the possibility of certainty, Descartes attempts to prove the existence of God. The argument he presents in the Third Meditation for the existence of God has been nicknamed the ‘Trademark’ argument. This argument deals with types of ideas, of which there are three, a principle called the Causal Adequacy principle, and a sliding scale of reality. The argument concludes that the idea of a God that is a perfect being is an innate idea that is real and was caused by God and therefore God is real. This argument will be explained with the greater detail in the next paragraph. In the Fifth Meditation Descartes again addresses the existence of God with an argument for His existence. This argument is a variation of St. Anselm’s ontological argument. This argument is also framed around his theory of ideas, as well as his principle of ‘clear and distinct perception’ and is explained and discussed in paragraph three. The paragraphs following these will discuss how convincing these two arguments from Descartes are and will deal with various objections. Many of these objections are strong enough that it will be clear why Descartes’ case has failed to convince everyone.

The question of God's existence has been debated in philosophy to great lengths. E.K. Daniel has listed all common philosophical arguments for the existence of God in his essay "A Defense of Theism", consisting of The Ontological Argument, The First-Cause Argument, The Argument of Contingency, The Design Argument, The Moral Argument, The Argument from Religious Experience, and The Natural Law Argument (p. 260). These arguments are familiar to any basic student of philosophy, along with the critiques that have been raised by philosophers such as Ernest Nagel in his essay "The Case for Atheism" (p. 274-283). These arguments have almost reached a virtual impasse, since there seems to be as much rational proof against the existence of God as there is fervor to believe in God. K.D. Ellis states this by saying "They may offer some support for the plausibility of the belief in a god, but they are not sufficiently strong enough to compel our assent to the conclusion that a god exists" (p. 297). This difference of perspective results in theism, atheism and agnosticism.