Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Quinque viæ (Latin for "Five Ways") (sometimes called "five proofs") are five logical arguments for the existence of God summarized by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theologica. They are:
The logical argument from evil argued by J. L. Mackie, and to which the free-will defense responds, is an argument against the existence of God based on the idea that a logical contradiction exists between four theological tenets often attributes to God. Specifically, the argument from evil asserts that the following set of propositions are, by ...
Another argument is that the resurrection of Jesus occurred and was an act of God, hence God must exist. Some versions of this argument have been presented, such as N. T. Wright's argument from the nature of the claim of resurrection to its occurrence and the "minimal facts argument", defended by scholars such as Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, which defend that God raising Jesus from the dead ...
Second, Bahnsen conflates "atheism" with "materialism" and has really presented an argument against materialism, not an argument for Christianity. Third, Bahnsen believed that the laws of logic, laws of science, and laws of morality are abstract objects , but Christianity arguably underdetermines the relationship between God and abstract objects.
Pascal's wager is a philosophical argument advanced by Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), seventeenth-century French mathematician, philosopher, physicist, and theologian. [1] This argument posits that individuals essentially engage in a life-defining gamble regarding the belief in the existence of God.
The argument from beauty (also the aesthetic argument) is an argument for the existence of a realm of immaterial ideas or, most commonly, for the existence of God, that roughly states that the evident beauty in nature, art and music and even in more abstract areas like the elegance of the laws of physics or the elegant laws of mathematics is ...
It is sometimes described as the "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord", or "Mad, Bad, or God" argument. It takes the form of a trilemma—a choice among three options, each of which is in some way difficult to accept. A form of the argument can be found as early as 1846, and many other versions of the argument preceded Lewis's formulation in the 1940s.
This counter-argument has been questioned by Gettings, [17] who agrees that the axioms might be questioned, but disagrees that Oppy's particular counter-example can be shown from Gödel's axioms. Religious scholar Fr. Robert J. Spitzer accepted Gödel's proof, calling it "an improvement over the Anselmian Ontological Argument (which does not ...