Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Epicurus was not an atheist, although he rejected the idea of a god concerned with human affairs; followers of Epicureanism denied the idea that there was no god. While the conception of a supreme, happy and blessed god was the most popular during his time, Epicurus rejected such a notion, as he considered it too heavy a burden for a god to have to worry about all the problems in the world.
If God does know this, either their free will might be illusory or foreknowledge does not imply predestination, and if God does not know it, God may not be omniscient. [81] Open Theism limits God's omniscience by contending that, due to the nature of time, God's omniscience does not mean the deity can predict the future and process theology ...
God in Islam is attributed with absolute omniscience. God knows the past, the present, and the future. It is compulsory for a Muslim to believe that God is indeed omniscient as stated in one of the six articles of faith which is: To believe that God's divine decree and predestination; Say: Do you instruct God about your religion?
Also regarded as inconsistent with such a just being is the combination of human free will—on which the justification for eternal damnation for sinners is predicated—and the divine qualities of omniscience (being all-knowing) and omnipotence (being all-powerful), as this would mean God (not humans) would determine everything that has ...
In developing his arguments, he inherently defined Ishvara as efficient cause, omnipotent, omniscient, infallible, giver of gifts, ability and meaning to humanity, divine creator of the world as well as the moral principles, and the unseen power that makes the karma doctrine work.
As opposed to a theodicy (a justification for God's actions), Plantinga puts forth a defense, offering a new proposition that is intended to demonstrate that it is logically possible for an omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God to create a world that contains moral evil. Significantly, Plantinga does not need to assert that his new ...
The formal version of the argument rests on a number of premises, many of which have received some degree of contention. Theological compatibilist responses have included; Deny the truth value of future contingents , as proposed for example by Aristotle (although this denies foreknowledge and, therefore, theological determinism).
The logical form of the argument tries to show a logical impossibility in the coexistence of a god and evil, [2] [10] 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]