Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) is an argument that attempts to prove the existence of God by appealing to the necessary conditions for the possibility of experience and knowledge. [1] A version was formulated by Immanuel Kant in his 1763 work The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence ...
Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect.
The Kalam cosmological argument was influenced by the concept of the prime mover, introduced by Aristotle.It originates in the works of theologian and philosopher John Philoponus (490–570 AD) [10] and was developed substantially under the medieval Islamic scholastic tradition during the Islamic Golden Age.
The One Possible Basis for a Demonstration of the Existence of God. Translated by Gordon Treash. New York: Abaris Books. Immanuel Kant (1992). "The Only Possible Argument In Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God". In David Walford (ed.). Theoretical Philosophy, 1755-1770. The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant.
Ward defended the utility of the five ways (for instance, on the fourth argument he states that all possible smells must pre-exist in the mind of God, but that God, being by his nature non-physical, does not himself stink) whilst pointing out that they only constitute a proof of God if one first begins with a proposition that the universe can ...
If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree. So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree. Hence God exists. [19] A second syllogistic form: Objects are said to be less or more concerning being, goodness, and truth.
Omnipotence, they say, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that is logically possible; he cannot, for instance, make a square circle. Likewise, God cannot make a being greater than himself, because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being. God is limited in his actions to his nature.
Al-Ghazali disputed this as incompatible with the concept of God's untrammelled free will as taught in Al-Ghazali's Asharite theology. [27] He further argued that God's free choice can be shown by the arbitrary nature of the exact size of the universe or the time of its creation. [27] Peter Adamson offered several more possible lines of criticism.