The Bible gives witness to two facts regarding the knowledge God. First, it teaches us that God is incomprehensible, and but then it also declares that God is knowable. Both are true, but not in an absolute sense. To say that God is incomprehensible simply means that finite man cannot know everything there is to know about God who is an infinite being. To say that God is knowable means that, though incomprehensible, God can be known and man can grow in the knowledge of God, at least in a limited sense and to the degree that is needed for man to trust God and have a personal and growing relationship with Him. Is proof for the existence of God necessary?
When you talk about proof, you are talking about establishing some degree of certainty about the existence of God. That is where Faith comes in Faith is: The assurance, confirmation, and the title deed of the things we hope for. The proof of things we do not see. The conviction of their reality and it perceives as real fact what is not revealed to the senses (Hebrews 11). It takes greater faith to believe that an unseen God exists than it does to just dismiss Him because you cannot physically confirm that He is there. No-one can ever prove that God exists by scientific methods. Religion and faith in God is based on individual beliefs. This is where the problem seems to lie, because most people fail to look inside themselves for God. Instead, they are so busy looking to their surroundings and other people to prove God exist. Romans clearly outlines what the real problem is and that is man’s rebellion and refusal to accept the evidence of nature or creation by God. The creation of the world God’s invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Which argument for the existence of God is strongest? Why?
The argument on the existence of God has been in the forefront of social consciousness than at any other time in human history. Philosophers have contemplated and presented different arguments attempting to explain the question, for hundreds of years which some say there is no conclusive proof that God does or does not exist. But, what is the strongest argument and why? It is my opinion that the strongest argument is the cosmological argument when compared to the other arguments along with fideism. This paper will present an argument for the cosmological argument as the strongest compared to the ontological, the design argument and fideism. The Cosmological Argument of all the philosophical arguments that attempt to provide proof that God exists, the cosmological argument is the strongest. The cosmological argument states “something we call the universe exists, regardless of how we might choose to characterize what it is we refer to as the universe. If the universe exists, something had to bring it into existence: a first cause. Furthermore, if the universe exists, and something therefore had to cause the universe to exist, then that first cause must exist. The only thing that could qualify as this first cause is God. Therefore, God exists” (Mosser, 2012, p.150). And of the different versions of the cosmological argument, it is St. Thomas Aquinos argument that provides the strength First he states that things to do not have to exist are contingent beings. Contingent beings required a cause to exist, and other contingent beings are incapable to provide the cause. So, a non contingent being that must exist provides the cause. Therefore if we, contingent beings exist, then God must exist first. It is strongest because Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
Can one be moral and not believe in God?
There are many people, that do not have any faith or belief in any personal god or deity, one that dispenses grace, goodness, and/or miracles according to his/her 'will'. There are people who do not and cannot stomach any willful divine being that plays with tornados, earthquakes or any other type of natural disasters. They do not support or promote any formal, organized religious notion or expression of any such 'god'. However, there are many who would totally disagree with these beliefs. Those who would disagree with these beliefs would undoubtedly argue these people must be immoral, and some may say that they represent evil. They would argue you cannot be moral if you do not believe in God. This is not correct. One can be moral and not believe in God. One who is moral but does not believe in god might believe, for example, there is only a creative principle at work in the Universe. They may also acknowledge a wish fulfilling inclination in the human mind, a desire to be part of some greater whole or purpose, which is the extension, or by-product, of our unique self-awareness and knowledge of our eventual death. We, humans, do not need to belong to any religion in order to have a sense of moral right or wrong. Moral righteousness is natural, and not centered on supernatural faith. Morality is a product of social, not spiritual interaction. Unfortunately, the mistaken idea that humans cannot be good without professing a belief in the ‘supreme being’ or without belonging to a religion is one that is dominant in most societies across the world. This mistaken idea is largely responsible for lack of progress in those areas of human life where religions exercise moral authority. Are science and religion in conflict?
Religion and science speak to two different spheres. Science speaks to understanding the universe in which we live and it doesn’t pass moral judgments in any way. Religion tells you how to structure your life, how to live a moral life, how to interact with members of your family, with other people. I see no conflict between religion and science. I respect people who are religious. Many people who are religious make wonderful contributions to science if they’re interested in doing it. I think it’s unfortunate if religious beliefs interfere with science because science is the way we make progress. Our understanding of the mind a fantastic scientific advance. Science thinks that religion is largely made of superstition. Religion thinks science is way too unconventional. But it really depends on maintaining a balance Many scientists practice a religion Science is based on the scientific method (see what happens, state why you think it happens, test it and adjust your original assumption to fit) while religions typically take the teachings of a person from long ago and promote this as the only truth. Can God’s omniscience and human free will be reconciled?
It is necessary to begin by defining the terms “omniscience” and “freedom.” I shall define “omniscience” as “the quality of possessing all possible knowledge” and “freedom” as “the state of being able to do something or not to do it.” But does “all possible knowledge” include knowledge of the future? Since most Christians would agree with Augustine’s claims that “to confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly” and that “one who is not prescient of all future things is not God” (Augustine, City of God, V, 9), I shall consider first the implications of God’s omniscience including knowledge of all future things. Then I shall consider the consequences of His omniscience not including knowledge of all future things. If God foreknows all future things, then everything has to happen in the way that it is foreknown. And if everything has to happen as foreknown, then those involved have to participate in the way in which they are foreknown to take part. And if those involved have to participate as foreknown, then they are not free not to take part. In other words, God’s foreknowledge seems logically to negate human freedom. That the Reformers recognized this can be illustrated by the following quotation from Luther: “For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it (as reason itself is forced to admit), then on the testimony of reason itself there cannot be any free choice in man or angel or any creature” (Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will, Conclusion). Thus my final verdict is that God is Omniscient and Man is free. Is there a rational argument for atheism?
God is the eternal, all-powerful, personal being who created and rules the universe. (Being eternal, God cannot come into or go out of existence. Being all-powerful, he can perform any action that is logically possible to perform. Being personal, he has some characteristics in common with humans, such as thinking, feeling emotions, and performing actions. The universe is understood to consist of all the space, time, matter, and energy that have ever existed.). A priori arguments for atheism claim that there is some logical contradiction in the theistic conception of God, and so that it is impossible for such a being to exist. Religions were entirely made up by humans. People who lived thousands of years ago couldn't explain many aspects of reality. Everything from the night sky to existence itself needed to be explained (because humans are curious), and the best/easiest answers were probably supernatural ones. Just look at how many religions there are. Each one stemming from a different tribe/community that needed answers, and settled for bullshit ones. Also, one might say "gravity is just a concept created by humans" Conclusion:
First, the knowledge of the existence of God means that man is put here by design. It means that while all God’s creatures have purpose, due to man’s particular uniqueness among the creatures of God, man has special purpose and meaning. We are not merely the product of time plus chance or some impersonal force. We are each the result of a personal God who created us for Himself with meaning and purpose. But the details of this purpose are found only in the Bible, God’s special revelation of Himself. Creation of course cannot and does not reveal this. Creation’s primary role is to give man the evidence and basis for God-consciousness. The knowledge of God means responsibility. The fact that there is a supreme and perfect being, a divine sovereign who created us for his purposes, means that we are each responsible to him for the way we live and for what we do with the life he has given us. We are fully responsibility to search and seek to know God personally and intimately, to be thankful, and to worship him accordingly. Reference:
1. J. I. Packer, Knowing God, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1973, pp. 14-15. 2. Robert P. Lightner, The God of the Bible, An Introduction to the Doctrine of God, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1973, p. 9. 3. Carrier, Richard. Sense & Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism. Bloomington, IN: Author House, 2005. 4. Craig, William Lane and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 5. Oliver J. Thatcher, ed., The Library of Original Sources (Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co., 1907), Vol. V: The Early Medieval World, pp. 359-363.