Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Existence of God is a 1979 book by British philosopher of religion Richard Swinburne, [1] [2] claiming the existence of the Abrahamic God on rational grounds. The argument rests on an updated version of natural theology with biological evolution using scientific inference, mathematical probability theory, such as Bayes' theorem, and of inductive logic. [3]
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Donate
The work has been described as codification of the Hindu arguments for the existence of God. [1] [2] It has been noted that this treatise is the most elaborate and the most fundamental work of the Nyaya-Vaiseshika school on the Isvara doctrine. [3]
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
Therefore, the question of God's existence may lie outside the purview of modern science by definition. [27] The Catholic Church maintains that knowledge of the existence of God is the "natural light of human reason". [28] Fideists maintain that belief in God's existence may not be amenable to demonstration or refutation, but rests on faith alone.
The English word God and its counterparts in other languages are normally used for any and all conceptions and, in spite of significant differences between religions, the term remains an English translation common to all. The Hebrew word for 'god' is El, which also as a proper noun referred to the chief deity in ancient Semitic religions.
This sets the book within the broad tradition of the Enlightenment's natural theology; and this explains why Paley based much of his thought on John Ray (1691), William Derham (1711) and Bernard Nieuwentyt (1750). [1] [2] Paley's argument is built mainly around anatomy and natural history. "For my part", he says, "I take my stand in human ...
Given the existence of a Godlike object in one world, proven above, we may conclude that there is a Godlike object in every possible world, as required (theorem 4). Besides axiom 1-5 and definition 1–3, a few other axioms from modal logic [clarification needed] were tacitly used in the proof.