Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
It is sometimes described as the "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord", or "Mad, Bad, or God" argument. It takes the form of a trilemma—a choice among three options, each of which is in some way difficult to accept. A form of the argument can be found as early as 1846, and many other versions of the argument preceded Lewis's formulation in the 1940s.
Another argument is that the resurrection of Jesus occurred and was an act of God, hence God must exist. Some versions of this argument have been presented, such as N. T. Wright's argument from the nature of the claim of resurrection to its occurrence and the "minimal facts argument", defended by scholars such as Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, which defend that God raising Jesus from the dead ...
Stroud argues that transcendental arguments often only establish the former but assert the latter, [7] so TAG, as a metaphysical transcendental argument, can only establish that human thought presupposes logic, science, and morality, but attempting to ground them in something beyond human thought, such as God, ultimately fails.
Pascal's wager is a philosophical argument advanced by Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), seventeenth-century French mathematician, philosopher, physicist, and theologian. [1] This argument posits that individuals essentially engage in a life-defining gamble regarding the belief in the existence of God.
This is the pelican whose "story" was told by the Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder. Thus by analogy to a " pagan " source, Christ feeds his own children with his own blood." Medieval philosophers also saw allegory in the natural world, interpreting animals, plants, and even non-living things in books called bestiaries as symbols of Biblical ...
Article III (i.e., the Five Ways) is a summary or application of this approach, but not intended to be complete or exhaustive. Fuller arguments are taken up in later sections of the Summa theologiae, and other publications.
The argument from reason is a transcendental argument against metaphysical naturalism and for the existence of God (or at least a supernatural being that is the source of human reason). The best-known defender of the argument is C. S. Lewis. Lewis first defended the argument at length in his 1947 book, Miracles: A Preliminary Study.
This counter-argument has been questioned by Gettings, [17] who agrees that the axioms might be questioned, but disagrees that Oppy's particular counter-example can be shown from Gödel's axioms. Religious scholar Fr. Robert J. Spitzer accepted Gödel's proof, calling it "an improvement over the Anselmian Ontological Argument (which does not ...