Since the term theology the study of God is often used of the study of other biblical subjects like the Bible, angels, man, salvation, and so on, Theology Proper is the designation sometimes used for just the study of God Himself. Rather than an exhaustive treatment, the study which follows is designed to be a general overview of the key features of what the Bible teaches about God, His existence, Persons, and attributes of the Triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard. More reasonable questions to ask about theistic arguments would seem to be the following: Are there valid arguments for the conclusion that God exists that have premises that are known or reasonably believed by some people?
Are the premises of such arguments more reasonable than their denials, at least for some reasonable people?
A non-believer might even concede some version of a theistic argument has some evidential force, but claim that the overall balance of evidence does not support belief. A major issue that cannot be settled here concerns the question of where the burden of proof lies with respect to theistic arguments.
If such evidence is lacking, the proper stance is atheism rather than agnosticism. A second way to challenge the presumption of atheism is to question an implicit assumption made by those who defend such a presumption, which is that belief in God is epistemologically more risky than unbelief.
The assumption might be defended in the following way: One might think that theists and atheists share a belief in many entities: Someone, however, who believes in leprechauns or sea monsters in addition to these commonly accepted objects thereby incurs a burden of proof.
One might think that belief in God is relevantly like belief in a leprechaun or sea monster, and thus that the theist also bears an additional burden of proof. Without good evidence in favor of belief in God the safe option is to refrain from belief. However, the theist may hold that this account does not accurately represent the situation.
In fact, God is not to be understood as an entity in the world at all; any such entity would by definition not be God. The debate is rather a debate about the character of the universe.
The theist believes that every object in the natural world exists because God creates and conserves that object; every finite thing has the character of being dependent on God. The debate is not about the existence of one object, but the character of the universe as a whole. Both parties are making claims about the character of everything in the natural world, and both claims seem risky.
This point is especially important in dealing with moral arguments for theism, since one of the questions raised by such arguments is the adequacy of a naturalistic worldview in explaining morality. Evidentialists may properly ask about the evidence for theism, but it also seems proper to ask about the evidence for atheism if the atheist is committed to a rival metaphysic such as naturalism.
Presumably he means that some things that are good are better than other good things; perhaps some noble people are nobler than others who are noble. Obviously, this argument draws deeply on Platonic and Aristotelian assumptions that are no longer widely held by philosophers.
For the argument to be plausible today, such assumptions would have to be defended, or else the argument reformulated in a way that frees it from its original metaphysical home. The latter condition implies that this end must be sought solely by moral action.
However, Kant held that a person cannot rationally will such an end without believing that moral actions can successfully achieve such an end, and this requires a belief that the causal structure of nature is conducive to the achievement of this end by moral means.
This is equivalent to belief in God, a moral being who is ultimately responsible for the character of the natural world. Kant-inspired arguments were prominent in the nineteenth century, and continued to be important right up to the middle of the twentieth century.
Such arguments can be found, for example, in W. SorleyHastings Rashdalland A. In the nineteenth century John Henry Newman also made good use of a moral argument in his case for belief in God, developing what could be called an argument from conscience.
In recent philosophy there has been a revival of divine command metaethical theories, which has in turn led to new versions of the moral argument found in such thinkers as Robert AdamsJohn Hareand C.
This book examines a comprehensive form of moral argument and extensively explores underlying issues.existence of God, will be evidences of the atheist’s folly.
One would think there were little need of spending time in evidencing this truth, since in the principle of it, it seems to be so universally owned, and at the first, proposal and demand, gains the assent of most.
When contemplating God, however, he recognizes that existence is as much an essential property of God's as having three angles that add up to degrees is an essential property of triangles.
God's existence is thus as certain as a geometric proof. Evidence For God's Existence. His existence, Persons, and attributes of the Triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Here is an essential part of the foundation needed for solid spiritual growth and insight into life in general and into the Christian life in particular.
Moral Arguments for the Existence of God First published Thu Jun 12, ; substantive revision Fri Jun 29, Moral arguments for God’s existence form a diverse family of arguments that reason from some feature of morality or the moral life to the existence of God, usually understood as .
The Existence and Attributes of God by Stephen Charnock TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCOURSE I - ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD DISCOURSE II - ON . In This Article The Existence and Attributes of God. Introduction; General Overviews; Anthologies; Some thus cover all the arguments for God’s existence or all the divine attributes together in a single chapter while others such as Davies and Meister have independent chapters either on each Truth and the Aim of Belief.