Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This is an accepted version of this page This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 6 February 2025. Philosophical question Part of a series on Theism Types of faith Agnosticism Apatheism Atheism Classical theism Deism Henotheism Ietsism Ignosticism Monotheism Monism Dualism Monolatry Kathenotheism Omnism Pandeism Panentheism Pantheism Polytheism Transtheism Specific conceptions Brahman ...
For the God who created and upholds the universe was not created – he is eternal. He was not 'made' and therefore subject to the laws that science discovered; it was he who made the universe with its laws. Indeed, that fact constitutes the fundamental distinction between God and the universe. The universe came to be, God did not.
This does not include original sin, since it is not an evil deed, since no one is predestined to hell, and since Feeneyism is the heresy that non-Catholics and excommunicated Catholics cannot be saved) [29] A sinner, once in hell, will inevitably refuse to turn away from his mortal sin to God's forgiveness. Accordingly, hell must endure as ...
The most common view is that while God does not need prayer, humans do. Hendriksen states that while God clearly does not need the actual act of prayer, each person does need such an outlet to bare their soul. [1] Fowler believes this use of the term "your Father" is meant to enhance this fatherly aspect of God. [2]
If no perfectly loving God exists, then God does not exist. If a perfectly loving God exists, then there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person. If there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
Ecumenical interpretations of the wager [34] argues that it could even be suggested that believing in a generic God, or a god by the wrong name, is acceptable so long as that conception of God has similar essential characteristics of the conception of God considered in Pascal's wager (perhaps the God of Aristotle). Proponents of this line of ...
However, God cannot do what is logically impossible and so cannot know what a human will freely do in the future. This is a departure from the standard Jewish, Christian or Islamic view. Swinburne assumes that humans have some limited free will by a choice of God, and are not fully determined by their brain states or by God.
God has not created all the persons he will create; there is at least one individual essence that God does not now have, but will have. If so, God has potentiality with respect to that characteristic. [34] Feser notes that someone who holds to divine simplicity does not have to hold to this view; one can think that God has "Cambridge ...