God - Revision history

TeraS at 17:52, 17 November 2014

2014-11-17T17:52:12Z

TeraS: /* Theological approaches */

2009-02-23T00:30:09Z

Theological approaches

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:30, 22 February 2009
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 [[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>		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.

TeraS: /* Names of God */

2009-02-23T00:27:44Z

Names of God

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:27, 22 February 2009
Line 16:		Line 16:
	== Names of God ==		== Names of God ==

	[[Conceptions of God]] can vary widely, but the word [[God ~~(word)\|God]]~~ in English—and its counterparts in other languages, such as Latinate ''[[Deus]]'', Greek [[Θεός]], Slavic ''Bog'', Sanskrit ''[[Ishvara]]'', or Arabic ''[[Allah]]''—are normally used for any and all conceptions. The same holds for Hebrew ''[[El ~~(god)\|El]]~~'', but ~~[[names of God in Judaism\|~~in Judaism]], God is also given a proper name, the [[tetragrammaton]] (usually reconstructed as ''[[Yahweh]]'' or YHWH), believed to hark back to the religion's [[henotheistic]] origins. In the [[Bible]], when the word "LORD" is in all capitals, it signifies that the word represents the tetragrammaton.<ref name=Barton2006>~~{{cite book~~		Conceptions of God can vary widely, but the word God in English—and its counterparts in other languages, such as Latinate ''Deus'', Greek Θεός, Slavic ''Bog'', Sanskrit ''Ishvara'', or Arabic ''Allah''—are normally used for any and all conceptions. The same holds for Hebrew ''El'', but in Judaism, God is also given a proper name, the tetragrammaton (usually reconstructed as ''Yahweh'' or YHWH), believed to hark back to the religion's henotheistic origins. In the Bible, when the word "LORD" is in all capitals, it signifies that the word represents the tetragrammaton.<ref name=Barton2006>A Sketch of Semitic Origins: Social and Religious ISBN 142861575X</ref> God may also be given a proper name in monotheistic currents of Hinduism which emphasize the personal nature of God, with early references to his name as Krishna-Vasudeva in Bhagavata or later Vishnu and Hari,<ref name = "Hastings541">[http://books.google.com/books?id=Kaz58z--NtUC&pg=PA540&vq=Krishna&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1_1&sig=lo3NqA31k8hJZw7qNc9QDEAYyYA Hastings]</ref> or recently Shakti.
	~~\|author = Barton, G.A.~~
	~~\|year = 2006~~
	~~\|title =~~ A Sketch of Semitic Origins: Social and Religious
	~~\|publisher = Kessinger Publishing~~
	~~\|isbn =~~ 142861575X
	}}</ref> God may also be given a proper name in monotheistic currents of Hinduism which emphasize the ~~[[personal god\|~~personal nature of God]], with early references to his name as [[Krishna]]-[[Vasudeva]] in [[Bhagavata]] or later [[Vishnu]] and [[Hari]],<ref name = "Hastings541">~~{{Harvnb\|Hastings\|2003\|p=540\|url=~~http://books.google.com/books?id=Kaz58z--NtUC&pg=PA540&vq=Krishna&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1_1&sig=lo3NqA31k8hJZw7qNc9QDEAYyYA}}</ref> or recently [[Shakti]].

	It is difficult to draw a line between proper names and [[epitheta]] of God, such as the [[names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament]], the [[names of God in the Qur'an]], and the various lists of ~~[[Sahasranama\|~~thousand names of God]] and [[List of titles and names of Krishna]] in Vaishnavism.		It is difficult to draw a line between proper names and epitheta of God, such as the names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament, the names of God in the Qur'an, and the various lists of thousand names of God and List of titles and names of Krishna in Vaishnavism.

	Throughout the Bible there are many names for God that portray his nature and character. ''Elohim'' means “strong one.” It is especially used of God’s sovereignty, creative work, mighty work for Israel and in relation to his sovereignty (<ref>Isa. 54:5</ref><ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.%2054:5&version=31</ref>; Jer. 32:27; Gen. 1:1; Isa. 45:18; Deut. 5:23; 8:15; Ps. 68:7). El Shaddai “God Almighty.” (Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; Ex. 6:31; Ps. 91:1, 2). El Elyon means “The Most High God” and stresses God’s strength, sovereignty, and supremacy (Gen. 14:19; Ps. 9:2; Dan. 7:18, 22, 25).		Throughout the Bible there are many names for God that portray his nature and character. ''Elohim'' means “strong one.” It is especially used of God’s sovereignty, creative work, mighty work for Israel and in relation to his sovereignty (<ref>Isa. 54:5</ref><ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.%2054:5&version=31</ref>; Jer. 32:27; Gen. 1:1; Isa. 45:18; Deut. 5:23; 8:15; Ps. 68:7). El Shaddai “God Almighty.” (Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; Ex. 6:31; Ps. 91:1, 2). El Elyon means “The Most High God” and stresses God’s strength, sovereignty, and supremacy (Gen. 14:19; Ps. 9:2; Dan. 7:18, 22, 25).

TeraS at 00:23, 23 February 2009

2009-02-23T00:23:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:23, 22 February 2009
Line 7:		Line 7:
	'''God''' is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the ''sole'' deity in monotheism, or a ''principal'' deity in polytheism.<ref name=Swinburne>Swinburne, R.G. "God" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'', Oxford University Press, 1995.</ref>		'''God''' is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the ''sole'' deity in monotheism, or a ''principal'' deity in polytheism.<ref name=Swinburne>Swinburne, R.G. "God" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'', Oxford University Press, 1995.</ref>

	God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".<ref name=Swinburne/> These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides,<ref name=Edwards /> The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995.</ref> and Al-Ghazali,<ref name=Platinga>Platinga, Alvin. "God, Arguments for the Existence of," ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', Routledge, 2000.</ref> respectively. Many notable medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God,<ref name="Plantinga" /> attempting to wrestle with the apparent contradictions implied by many of these attributes.		God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".<ref name=Swinburne/> These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides,<ref name=Edwards /> The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995.<ref name = Edwards>Edwards, Paul. "God and the philosophers" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995.</ref> and Al-Ghazali,<ref name=Platinga>Platinga, Alvin. "God, Arguments for the Existence of," ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', Routledge, 2000.</ref> respectively. Many notable medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God,<ref name="Plantinga" /> attempting to wrestle with the apparent contradictions implied by many of these attributes.

	== Etymology and usage ==		== Etymology and usage ==

TeraS at 00:20, 23 February 2009

2009-02-23T00:20:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:20, 22 February 2009
Line 7:		Line 7:
	'''God''' is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the ''sole'' deity in monotheism, or a ''principal'' deity in polytheism.<ref name=Swinburne>Swinburne, R.G. "God" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'', Oxford University Press, 1995.</ref>		'''God''' is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the ''sole'' deity in monotheism, or a ''principal'' deity in polytheism.<ref name=Swinburne>Swinburne, R.G. "God" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'', Oxford University Press, 1995.</ref>

	God is most often conceived of as the [[supernatural~~]] [[~~creator ~~deity\|creator]]~~ and overseer of the [[universe]]. ~~[[Theology\|~~Theologians]] have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different [[conceptions of God]]. The most common among these include [[omniscience]], [[omnipotence]], [[omnipresence]], [[omnibenevolence]] (perfect ~~[[good and evil\|~~goodness]]), [[divine simplicity]], and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being [[incorporeal]], a [[personal ~~god\|personal]]~~ being, the source of all [[moral obligation]], and the "greatest conceivable existent".<ref name=Swinburne/> These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early ~~[[Judaism\|~~Jewish]], ~~[[Christianity\|~~Christian]] and ~~[[Islam\|~~Muslim]] theologian philosophers, including [[Maimonides]],<ref name=Edwards /> ~~[[Augustine of Hippo]],<ref name=Edwards>[[Paul Edwards (philosopher)\|Edwards, Paul]]. "God and the philosophers" in [[Ted Honderich\|Honderich, Ted]]. (ed)''~~The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'', [[Oxford University Press]], 1995.</ref> and [[Al-Ghazali]],<ref name=Platinga>~~[[Alvin Plantinga\|~~Platinga, Alvin]]. "God, Arguments for the Existence of," ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', Routledge, 2000.</ref> respectively. Many notable ~~[[medieval philosophy\|~~medieval philosophers]] developed ~~[[argument]]s~~ for the [[existence of God]],<ref name="Plantinga" /> attempting to wrestle with the apparent ~~[[contradiction]]s~~ implied by many of these attributes.		God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".<ref name=Swinburne/> These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides,<ref name=Edwards /> The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995.</ref> and Al-Ghazali,<ref name=Platinga>Platinga, Alvin. "God, Arguments for the Existence of," ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', Routledge, 2000.</ref> respectively. Many notable medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God,<ref name="Plantinga" /> attempting to wrestle with the apparent contradictions implied by many of these attributes.

	== Etymology and usage ==		== Etymology and usage ==

TeraS: /* Etymology and usage */

2009-02-23T00:16:59Z

Etymology and usage

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:16, 22 February 2009
Line 10:		Line 10:

	== Etymology and usage ==		== Etymology and usage ==
	The earliest written form of the Germanic word ''god'' comes from the 6th century ~~[[Christianity\|~~Christian~~]] [[~~Codex Argenteus]]. The English word itself is derived from the [[Proto-Germanic]] * ''ǥuđan''. Most linguists agree that the reconstructed [[Proto-Indo-European ~~language\|Proto-Indo-European]]~~ form {{PIE\|* ǵhu-tó-m}} was based on the root {{PIE\|* ǵhau(ə)-}}, which meant either "to call" or "to invoke".<ref>The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from a foreign tongue, the OTeut. "ghuba" implies as its preTeut-type either "ghodho-m" or "ghodto-m". The former does not appear to admit of explanation; but the latter would represent the neut. pple. of a root "gheu-". There are two Aryan roots of the required form ("*g,heu-" with palatal aspirate) one with meaning 'to invoke' (Skr. "hu") the other 'to pour, to offer sacrifice' (Skr "hu", Gr. χεηi;ν, OE "geotàn" Yete v). ~~[[Oxford English Dictionary\|~~OED Compact Edition, G, p. 267]]</ref>		The earliest written form of the Germanic word ''god'' comes from the 6th century Christian Codex Argenteus. The English word itself is derived from the Proto-Germanic * ''ǥuđan''. Most linguists agree that the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form ǵhu-tó-m was based on the root ǵhau(ə)-, which meant either "to call" or "to invoke".<ref>The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from a foreign tongue, the OTeut. "ghuba" implies as its preTeut-type either "ghodho-m" or "ghodto-m". The former does not appear to admit of explanation; but the latter would represent the neut. pple. of a root "gheu-". There are two Aryan roots of the required form ("*g,heu-" with palatal aspirate) one with meaning 'to invoke' (Skr. "hu") the other 'to pour, to offer sacrifice' (Skr "hu", Gr. χεηi;ν, OE "geotàn" Yete v). OED Compact Edition, G, p. 267</ref>

	The capitalized form ''God'' was first used in [[Wulfila]]'s Gothic translation of the [[New Testament]], to represent the Greek ''[[Theos]]''. In the [[English language]], the capitalization continues to represent a distinction between monotheistic "God" and "gods" in [[polytheism]].<ref>[[Webster's New World Dictionary]]; "god n. ME < OE, akin to Ger gott, Goth guth, prob. < IE base * ĝhau-, to call out to, invoke > Sans havaté, (he) calls upon; 1. any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship; 2. an image that is worshiped; idol 3. a person or thing deified or excessively honored and admired; 4. [G-] in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; [[Supreme Being]]; the Almighty </ref><ref> Dictionary.com Dictionary.com; "God /gɒd/ noun: 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. 2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute. 3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. 4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy. 5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. 6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol. 7. (lowercase) any deified person or object. 8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater. 8a. the upper balcony in a theater. 8b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.</ref> In spite of significant differences between religions such as [[Christianity]], [[Islam]], [[Hinduism]], the [[Bahá'í Faith]], and [[Judaism]], the term "God" remains an English translation common to all. The name may signify any related or similar monotheistic deities, such as the early monotheism of [[Akhenaten]] and [[Zoroastrianism]].		The capitalized form ''God'' was first used in Wulfila's Gothic translation of the New Testament, to represent the Greek ''Theos''. In the English language, the capitalization continues to represent a distinction between monotheistic "God" and "gods" in polytheism.<ref>Webster's New World Dictionary; "god n. ME < OE, akin to Ger gott, Goth guth, prob. < IE base * ĝhau-, to call out to, invoke > Sans havaté, (he) calls upon; 1. any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship; 2. an image that is worshiped; idol 3. a person or thing deified or excessively honored and admired; 4. [G-] in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; Supreme Being; the Almighty </ref><ref> Dictionary.com Dictionary.com; "God /gɒd/ noun: 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. 2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute. 3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. 4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy. 5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. 6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol. 7. (lowercase) any deified person or object. 8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater. 8a. the upper balcony in a theater. 8b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.</ref> In spite of significant differences between religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, the Bahá'í Faith, and Judaism, the term "God" remains an English translation common to all. The name may signify any related or similar monotheistic deities, such as the early monotheism of Akhenaten and Zoroastrianism.

	== Names of God ==		== Names of God ==

TeraS: /* Conceptions of God */

2009-02-23T00:11:02Z

Conceptions of God

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:11, 22 February 2009
Line 29:		Line 29:

	== Conceptions of God ==		== Conceptions of God ==
	[[Image:Creation of the Sun and Moon face detail.jpg\|thumb\|200px\|Detail of [[Sistine Chapel]] fresco ''Creation of the Sun and Moon'' by [[Michelangelo]] (completed in 1512).]]		[[Image:Creation of the Sun and Moon face detail.jpg\|thumb\|200px\|Detail of Sistine Chapel fresco ''Creation of the Sun and Moon'' by Michelangelo (completed in 1512).]]
	Conceptions of God vary widely. Theologians and philosophers have studied countless conceptions of God since the dawn of civilization. The [[Abrahamic conceptions of God]] include the ~~[[trinity\|~~trinitarian]] view of [[Christians]], the [[Kabbalistic definition of ~~God\|Kabbalistic definition]] of [[~~Jewish]] mysticism, and the [[Islamic concept of God]]. The [[dharmic religions]] differ in their view of the divine: views of [[God in Hinduism]] vary by region, sect, and caste, ranging from monotheistic to polytheistic to atheistic; the view of [[God in Buddhism]] is almost non-theist. In modern times, some more abstract concepts have been developed, such as [[process theology]] and [[open theism]]. Conceptions of God held by individual believers vary so widely that there is no clear consensus on the nature of God.<ref>~~{{Cite web \| url=~~http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news/bulletin/articles/does_god_matter.html ~~\| title=DOES GOD MATTER? A Social-Science Critique \| work=by Paul Froese and Christopher Bader \| accessdate=2007-05-28}}~~</ref> The contemporaneous French philosopher [[Michel Henry]] has however proposed a ~~[[Phenomenological definition of God\|~~phenomenological approach and definition of God]] as ~~[[phenomenology\|~~phenomenological]] essence of ~~[[Phenomenological life\|~~Life]].<ref>Michel Henry : ''I am the Truth. Toward a philosophy of Christianity'' (Stanford University Press, 2002)</ref>		Conceptions of God vary widely. Theologians and philosophers have studied countless conceptions of God since the dawn of civilization. The Abrahamic conceptions of God include the trinitarian view of Christians, the Kabbalistic definition of Jewish mysticism, and the Islamic concept of God. The dharmic religions differ in their view of the divine: views of God in Hinduism vary by region, sect, and caste, ranging from monotheistic to polytheistic to atheistic; the view of God in Buddhism is almost non-theist. In modern times, some more abstract concepts have been developed, such as process theology and open theism. Conceptions of God held by individual believers vary so widely that there is no clear consensus on the nature of God.<ref>http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news/bulletin/articles/does_god_matter.html</ref> The contemporaneous French philosopher Michel Henry has however proposed a phenomenological approach and definition of God as phenomenological essence of Life.<ref>Michel Henry : ''I am the Truth. Toward a philosophy of Christianity'' (Stanford University Press, 2002)</ref>

	== Existence of God ==		== Existence of God ==

TeraS: /* Existence of God */

2009-02-23T00:02:39Z

Existence of God

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:02, 22 February 2009
Line 39:		Line 39:
	<!-- THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH IS BASED ON RELIABLE SOURCES FROM THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARTICLE.		<!-- THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH IS BASED ON RELIABLE SOURCES FROM THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARTICLE.
	Please do not modify this section -->		Please do not modify this section -->
	A recent argument for the existence of God is ''intelligent design'',<ref>The Creationists, Expanded Edition ISBN 0674023390</ref> which asserts that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."<ref name=DIposition>http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign</ref> It is a modern form of the traditional argument from design, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,<ref><cite>"Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes."</cite> Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]] trial. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6pm.html Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest].</ref> believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God.<ref>"the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 26 of 139\|Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December, 2005</ref>		A recent argument for the existence of God is ''intelligent design'',<ref>The Creationists, Expanded Edition ISBN 0674023390</ref> which asserts that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."<ref name=DIposition>http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign</ref> It is a modern form of the traditional argument from design, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,<ref><cite>"Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes."</cite> Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6pm.html Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest].</ref> believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God.<ref>"the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 26 of 139\|Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December, 2005</ref>

	== Theological approaches ==		== Theological approaches ==

TeraS: /* Existence of God */

2009-02-23T00:01:45Z

Existence of God

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:01, 22 February 2009
Line 33:		Line 33:

	== Existence of God ==		== Existence of God ==
	Many arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed and rejected by philosophers, theologians, and other thinkers. In ~~[[Philosophy\|~~philosophical]] terminology, such arguments concern schools of thought on the [[epistemology]] of the [[ontology]] of God.		Many arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed and rejected by philosophers, theologians, and other thinkers. In philosophical terminology, such arguments concern schools of thought on the epistemology of the ontology of God.

	There are many philosophical issues concerning the existence of God. Some definitions of God are sometimes nonspecific, while other definitions can be self-contradictory. Arguments for the existence of God typically include metaphysical, empirical, inductive, and subjective types, while others revolve around holes in evolutionary theory and order and complexity in the [[world]]. Arguments against the existence of God typically include empirical, deductive, and inductive types. Conclusions reached include: "God exists and this can be proven"; "God exists, but this cannot be proven or disproven" ([[theism]] in both cases); "God does not exist" (~~[[Weak and~~ strong atheism~~\|strong atheism]]~~); "God almost certainly does not exist"<ref>~~{{cite web\|url=~~http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html~~\|title=Why There Almost Certainly Is No God\|Publisher=Richard Dawkins, The Huffington Post}}~~</ref> (''de facto'' [[atheism]]); and "no one knows whether God exists" ([[agnosticism]]). There are numerous variations on these positions.		There are many philosophical issues concerning the existence of God. Some definitions of God are sometimes nonspecific, while other definitions can be self-contradictory. Arguments for the existence of God typically include metaphysical, empirical, inductive, and subjective types, while others revolve around holes in evolutionary theory and order and complexity in the world. Arguments against the existence of God typically include empirical, deductive, and inductive types. Conclusions reached include: "God exists and this can be proven"; "God exists, but this cannot be proven or disproven" (theism in both cases); "God does not exist" (strong atheism); "God almost certainly does not exist"<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html</ref> (''de facto'' atheism); and "no one knows whether God exists" (agnosticism). There are numerous variations on these positions.

	<!-- THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH IS BASED ON RELIABLE SOURCES FROM THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARTICLE.		<!-- THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH IS BASED ON RELIABLE SOURCES FROM THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARTICLE.
	Please do not modify this section ~~without consulting the sources cited in the main article on [[intelligent design]] as well as the [[Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ]].~~ -->		Please do not modify this section -->
	A recent argument for the existence of God is ''[[intelligent design]]'',<ref>~~{{cite book \| last = Numbers \| first = Ronald L. \| authorlink = Ronald L. Numbers \| title = [[~~The Creationists]], Expanded Edition ~~\| publisher = [[Harvard University Press]] \| year = 2006 \| pages = 373, 379–380 \| isbn =~~ 0674023390}}</ref> which asserts that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as [[natural selection]]."<ref name=DIposition>~~{{cite web\|url=~~http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign~~\|title=Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design?\|publisher=[[Discovery Institute]]\|accessdate=2007-05-13}}.~~</ref> It is a modern form of the traditional ~~[[teleological argument\|~~argument from design]], modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the [[Discovery Institute]],<ref><cite>"Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's [[Center for Science and Culture]]. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the [[intelligent design movement]] associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes."</cite> [[Barbara Forrest]], 2005, testifying in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]] trial. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6pm.html Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest].</ref> believe the designer to be the [[Abrahamic]] God.<ref>"the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 26 of 139\|Ruling]], [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]], December, 2005</ref>		A recent argument for the existence of God is ''intelligent design'',<ref>The Creationists, Expanded Edition ISBN 0674023390</ref> which asserts that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."<ref name=DIposition>http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign</ref> It is a modern form of the traditional argument from design, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,<ref><cite>"Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes."</cite> Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]] trial. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6pm.html Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest].</ref> believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God.<ref>"the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 26 of 139\|Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December, 2005</ref>

	== Theological approaches ==		== Theological approaches ==

TeraS: /* Theological approaches */

2009-02-22T23:56:25Z

Theological approaches

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:56, 22 February 2009
Line 43:		Line 43:
	== Theological approaches ==		== Theological approaches ==

	Theologians and philosophers have ascribed a number of attributes to God, including [[omniscience]], [[omnipotence]], [[omnipresence]], perfect ~~[[Good and evil\|~~goodness]], divine [[simplicity]], and ~~[[eternity\|~~eternal]] and [[necessary]] existence. God has been described as ~~[[Corporeal\|~~incorporeal]], a personal being, the source of all [[moral obligation]], and the greatest conceivable being existent.<ref name=Swinburne/> These attributes were all claimed to varying degrees by the early ~~[[Judaism\|~~Jewish]], ~~[[Christianity\|~~Christian]] and ~~[[Islam\|~~Muslim]] scholars, including ~~[[Augustine of Hippo\|~~St Augustine]],<ref name=Edwards /> [[Al-Ghazali]],<ref name=Plantinga>~~[[Alvin Plantinga\|~~Plantinga, Alvin]]. "God, Arguments for the Existence of," ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', Routledge, 2000.</ref> and [[Maimonides]].<ref name=Edwards />		Theologians and philosophers have ascribed a number of attributes to God, including omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has been described as incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the greatest conceivable being existent.<ref name=Swinburne/> These attributes were all claimed to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars, including St Augustine,<ref name=Edwards /> Al-Ghazali,<ref name=Plantinga>Plantinga, Alvin. "God, Arguments for the Existence of," ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', Routledge, 2000.</ref> and Maimonides.<ref name=Edwards />

	Many ~~[[Medieval philosophy\|~~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 ~~[[Robert Audi\|~~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 ~~[[Existence of God#Arguments for the existence of God\|~~arguments for God's existence]] raised by such philosophers as ~~[[Immanual Kant\|~~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 "~~[[reformed epistemology\|~~properly basic]]"; or to take, like [[Richard Swinburne]], the [[evidentialist]] position.<ref>~~{{Cite journal \|first=Michael \|last=Beaty \|year=1991 \|title=God Among the Philosophers \|url=~~http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=53 ~~\|journal=The Christian Century \|accessdate=2007-02-20}}~~</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~~\|Pascal]]~~ as: "The heart has reasons which reason knows not of."<ref>~~[[Blaise Pascal\|~~Pascal, Blaise]]. ''[[Pensées]]'', 1669.</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 [[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 ~~[[angel]]s~~, ~~[[saint]]s~~, ~~[[djinn]]i~~, [[demon]]s, and ~~[[deva (New Age)\|~~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.

	=== Theism and Deism ===		=== Theism and Deism ===