In this essay, using two theistic approaches of proof I will argue and discuss the arguments for the existence of God. In doing so I will use Sokolowski and Moser’s approaches while drawing upon other theologian scholars too.
Views about theistic arguments are widely diverse, especially contemporary proponents. “Proofs” are merely those that provide arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. I will be focusing mainly on Rober Sokolowski book, The God of Faith and Reason, here he examines the existence of God through understanding God as a creator and looking at Christian perspective of this instead of directing faith and reason as major motives. Moser offers an interesting insight, quite different to Sokolowiski as he looks …show more content…
For Moser “God signifies a being worthy of worship” (p.22) , therefore should not be stripped down to a mere ambiguity or unjustifiable concepts. Firstly we must analyse what kind of God, Moses God is before evaluating his theistic proofs. From what I can gather he is an intentional God who seeks for love from human experience and longs for human interaction with the divine. However we should only expect evidence of Gods existence ‘in a manner suitable to divine purposes” (p.40) Moser examines what he calls ‘notheistic naturalism’ as a way of explaining the idea of a purposive agent which Hewirth argues that all “Prospective Purpose Agents” must lay a claim right to the generic preconditions of purposeful action’ . Moser writes to prove this would ‘yield a difficult task for the natural sciences’ (p.49). Ontological naturalism is the view that our best understanding of what there is , is what science reveals there is. Moser examines this in its three forms; noneliminiative nonreductive ontological naturalism, noneliminative reductive ontological naturalism , and eliminative ontological naturalism ( p71) discussing them as relevant evidence that “if ontological naturalism is true, then God does not exist” (p.72) Moser posits the phrase ‘Core scientism’ which grant that the empirical sciences are …show more content…
Which leads me to the statement, do we need evidence to believe in God. Or should we look to it from another perspective which doesn’t try and prove the existence of God but merely acts on faith alone and some sort of fideism. Moser begins to analyze this key concept of faith by turning toward biblical scripture itself, such as Genesis 12, 15, the call of Abraham, and the idea of Kieregaard, who presents this idea that the psudoynm that Climascus represents the subjective approach to knowledge meanwhile climactus is a non-believer. His says that the ladder is not the climb to God but a calling which activates the logical plateaus, where the logician which is mainly presented by Descartes and Hegel, proceed from one premise and onto the next. Climacus discards this idea when considering spirituality, and believes that the only way to understand the absolute is through faith alone. Kierkgard was alarmed about knowledge that would inspire the soul to lean to God, however Climascus claims that he is not a believer in the Christian faith because he has not yet received the knowledge of God. The sudden ascent to God reaching towards impassibility is removed to be replaced with the idea that the believer through a subjective approach for truth finds himself standing before Christ. Moser concludes from this also that “faith on God therefore should not be characterized as an inward
Views about theistic arguments are widely diverse, especially contemporary proponents. “Proofs” are merely those that provide arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. I will be focusing mainly on Rober Sokolowski book, The God of Faith and Reason, here he examines the existence of God through understanding God as a creator and looking at Christian perspective of this instead of directing faith and reason as major motives. Moser offers an interesting insight, quite different to Sokolowiski as he looks …show more content…
For Moser “God signifies a being worthy of worship” (p.22) , therefore should not be stripped down to a mere ambiguity or unjustifiable concepts. Firstly we must analyse what kind of God, Moses God is before evaluating his theistic proofs. From what I can gather he is an intentional God who seeks for love from human experience and longs for human interaction with the divine. However we should only expect evidence of Gods existence ‘in a manner suitable to divine purposes” (p.40) Moser examines what he calls ‘notheistic naturalism’ as a way of explaining the idea of a purposive agent which Hewirth argues that all “Prospective Purpose Agents” must lay a claim right to the generic preconditions of purposeful action’ . Moser writes to prove this would ‘yield a difficult task for the natural sciences’ (p.49). Ontological naturalism is the view that our best understanding of what there is , is what science reveals there is. Moser examines this in its three forms; noneliminiative nonreductive ontological naturalism, noneliminative reductive ontological naturalism , and eliminative ontological naturalism ( p71) discussing them as relevant evidence that “if ontological naturalism is true, then God does not exist” (p.72) Moser posits the phrase ‘Core scientism’ which grant that the empirical sciences are …show more content…
Which leads me to the statement, do we need evidence to believe in God. Or should we look to it from another perspective which doesn’t try and prove the existence of God but merely acts on faith alone and some sort of fideism. Moser begins to analyze this key concept of faith by turning toward biblical scripture itself, such as Genesis 12, 15, the call of Abraham, and the idea of Kieregaard, who presents this idea that the psudoynm that Climascus represents the subjective approach to knowledge meanwhile climactus is a non-believer. His says that the ladder is not the climb to God but a calling which activates the logical plateaus, where the logician which is mainly presented by Descartes and Hegel, proceed from one premise and onto the next. Climacus discards this idea when considering spirituality, and believes that the only way to understand the absolute is through faith alone. Kierkgard was alarmed about knowledge that would inspire the soul to lean to God, however Climascus claims that he is not a believer in the Christian faith because he has not yet received the knowledge of God. The sudden ascent to God reaching towards impassibility is removed to be replaced with the idea that the believer through a subjective approach for truth finds himself standing before Christ. Moser concludes from this also that “faith on God therefore should not be characterized as an inward