Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The logical form of the argument tries to show a logical impossibility in the coexistence of a god and evil, [2] [9] while the evidential form tries to show that given the evil in the world, it is improbable that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and a wholly good god. [3]
Hinduism is a complex religion with many different currents or religious beliefs [125] Its non-theist traditions such as Samkhya, early Nyaya, Mimamsa and many within Vedanta do not posit the existence of an almighty, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God (monotheistic God), and the classical formulations of the problem of evil and ...
A defense attempts to show that God's existence is not made logically impossible by the existence of evil; it does not need to be true or plausible, merely logically possible. American philosopher Alvin Plantinga offers a free-will defense which argues that human free will sufficiently explains the existence of evil while maintaining that God's ...
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.
Divine incomprehensibility was said to be a point of conflict in the Clark-Van Til Controversy in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church during the 1940s, [8] but John Frame argues that the issue there was the relationship between human knowledge and divine knowledge, rather than human knowledge and the being of God.
The Immutability or Unchangeability of God is an attribute that "God is unchanging in his character, will, and covenant promises." [1] The Westminster Shorter Catechism says that "[God] is a spirit, whose being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth are infinite, eternal, and unchangeable." Those things do not change.
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 ...
It means that God is unable to sin, which is a stronger statement than merely saying that God does not sin. [25] Robert Morey argues that God does not have the "absolute freedom" found in Greek philosophy. Whereas "the Greeks assumed the gods were 'free' to become demons if they so chose", the God of the Bible "is 'free' to act only in ...