Bureaucrats, checkuser, oversight, Administrators
67,099
edits
On November 6th, 2024, the 9,000th article was added to the SuccuWiki!
God: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Theological approaches
m (→Names of God) |
|||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
Many medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God,<ref name=Plantinga/> while attempting to comprehend the precise implications of God's attributes. Reconciling some of those attributes generated important philosophical problems and debates. For example, God's omniscience implies that God knows how free agents will choose to act. If God does know this, their apparent free will might be illusory, or foreknowledge does not imply predestination; and if God does not know it, God is not omniscient.<ref name=Wierenga>Wierenga, Edward R. "Divine foreknowledge" in Audi, Robert. ''The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy''. Cambridge University Press, 2001.</ref> | Many medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God,<ref name=Plantinga/> while attempting to comprehend the precise implications of God's attributes. Reconciling some of those attributes generated important philosophical problems and debates. For example, God's omniscience implies that God knows how free agents will choose to act. If God does know this, their apparent free will might be illusory, or foreknowledge does not imply predestination; and if God does not know it, God is not omniscient.<ref name=Wierenga>Wierenga, Edward R. "Divine foreknowledge" in Audi, Robert. ''The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy''. Cambridge University Press, 2001.</ref> | ||
The last centuries of philosophy have seen vigorous questions regarding the arguments for God's existence raised by such philosophers as Immanuel Kant, David Hume and Antony Flew, although Kant held that the argument from morality was valid. The theist response has been either to contend, like Alvin Plantinga, that faith is "properly basic"; or to take, like Richard Swinburne, the evidentialist position.<ref>http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=53</ref> Some Theism|theists agree that none of the arguments for God's existence are compelling, but argue that faith is not a product of | The last centuries of philosophy have seen vigorous questions regarding the arguments for God's existence raised by such philosophers as Immanuel Kant, David Hume and Antony Flew, although Kant held that the argument from morality was valid. The theist response has been either to contend, like Alvin Plantinga, that faith is "properly basic"; or to take, like Richard Swinburne, the evidentialist position.<ref>http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=53</ref> Some Theism|theists agree that none of the arguments for God's existence are compelling, but argue that faith is not a product of reason, but requires risk. There would be no risk, they say, if the arguments for God's existence were as solid as the laws of logic, a position summed up by Blaise Pascal as: "The heart has reasons which reason knows not of."<ref>Pascal, Blaise]]. ''Pensées'', 1669.</ref> | ||
Most major religions hold God not as a metaphor, but a being that influences our day-to-day existences. Many believers allow for the existence of other, less powerful spiritual beings, and give them names such as angels, saints, djinni, [[demon]]s, and devas. | Most major religions hold God not as a metaphor, but a being that influences our day-to-day existences. Many believers allow for the existence of other, less powerful spiritual beings, and give them names such as angels, saints, djinni, [[demon]]s, and devas. | ||