GuestSide >> THE GOD
Arguments beside a God's existence.
When we talk about god arguments (if not too always, but the mostly) we wish to prove his existence to the God of the theism.
The theism a so philosophical and ideological tendency, according to which a divine being managing will and self-awareness, who created it, exists and maintains the universe with his personal power. This God everywhere present, immaterial, endless being, who is almighty, omniscient, everlasting, ethical perfectness the world's governor, and the people's actions god mentioning onto a judgement. The believer (theist) person who denies it, a God's non-existence. The theism is the denial of the atheism.
According to the teaching of the deism: A personal, everlasting, wise, immaterial being's, who some the first is, reason is a God for the universe. He the person who it is universe the from nothing created by (or the chaotic substance existing already cosmos directed it), but let himself have its way about the world afterwards, not caring about it already long, not intervening in his flow. This God is neutral to his creatures ethically, for these creatures he like that, as if would not exist.
Altogether important it, that this God exists (or not)? - questionable but very serious arguments sound beside it, that yes, important!
How do we explain the concept of the existence according to our today's knowledge?
Existing primarily is a philosophical concept. Everything, about which we know, exists according to more points of view.
The philosophy the thinking, the brooding, the meditation, the science of the investigation from the most important things of the life. From the sense of the life -- Salamon made this just king --, from a God, from the virtue, from the methods of the thinking, from the society, from the nature, from the background reasons of the universe etc. That philosophy is conflicting with this, that in the deficiency of the knowledge of the things, onto assumptions, the life qualifies it based on theories, God, nature, society, the manifestations of thinking.
We find attention for those arguments if we take as a starting point the fact that a God's existence is important looking at us, for evidences, that it they try to prove that a God exists really. There are ideological tendencies naturally, that from the beginning (already before the examination) the grounds of the God arguments are doubted, but their argumentation depends on quite unstable bases.
The God dismissive.
Two ideological tendencies involve the grounds of the God arguments in a doubt fundamentally. One the fideism, the other the strong agnosticism (the single certain kind of the scepticism: scepticism = the philosophy of the doubt). Than I said it their objections depend on weak feet. First immediately because of that, because fundamental feeling, recogniser we feel that it is not possible to reject something already before it before we would have examined it by virtue of our abilities. Secondly because both points of view are controversial, and in this manner, than so, eliminates himself, than all items, statement, system (etc.) his fate, which contradicts himself, is sentenced to this, see it: Darwinism, his assumptions reflecting the human outlook differing for the universe's formation.
The fideism (fidesz = faith; in Latin): to the religious faith truth peculiar relation, generally Protestant (and new-Protestant) denominations (little, Christian communities) his members represent it. They, one or two biblical thoughts interpreting strong resistance is expounded against all kinds of philosophy although he exists, it is bored. noble philosophy, if it is true once that Salamon is a king in the preacher's book because of his front until his end does this noble philosophy.
The fideism claims that a God existing with arguments is not provable opposite this, but the man has to wait for it instead of this while a God grasps him. This means approximately so much that the respective person does not have to make something else, than (to wait for the roast dove) his heart sincerely to open and to transmit for a God (because the man does not have to look for a God as a matter of fact, but has to let a God to find it out, than onto his lost sheep the shepherd).
The fideism rejects the probative value of the God arguments:
1. ..., because he presupposes the divine inspiration of the Bible groundlessly.
Who represent the above standpoint represent this based on the Bible. However: from the divine inspiration of the Bible, sometime was needed, or would have been needed to keep up with, since the man is not born with the knowledge of this. That could convince they, since if would have convinced, it would not be represented already, that. Their presupposition is without foundation on the other hand in this manner. They would be Muslim on the same basis if they would live in one of the Islamic countries for example, and what is presupposed for true one currently would not be taken for true one.
2. ..., because the point of view of the fideism is controversial.
Since from an any kind of world view, obtaining knowledge on a faith system only in two ways is you may be: or in that manner, that the half truth our wisdom, using our sense, we are thinking, we reflect on his tenets, from his opinions, and we all check it with an examination beside this they his truth duration; or merely credulously we accept it. On the other hand if this latter one we elect it, we will be unable to respond to the question even for ourselves then: why we believe in in what we believe, and why not in his contrary? Opposite this, if we can answer to this, and we can mark the reasons of our faith, we had to do the rational examination early already then, but we may not say it if he is in this manner, that a God's existence, or the Bible his inspiration, may not be with arguments to support.
3. ..., dared the Bible, neither teaches what the fideism represents (at least a basis on a level) because of an all kinds of revelation independently. So: yet if Sola Scriptura (alone Holy Scripture) principle we accept it (that one of his central ideas were the reformations), even then true it is left over, that from Holy Scripture we may assure ourselves of a God's existence independently. If he is in this manner on the other hand, then the thoughts of the making certain and his evidences in arguments can be related, in statements can be explained, that against it says for the point of view of the fideism.
4. ..., dared would be a mistake it to think, that we are able to know our way round a God's work.
Which one could claim that a God, who recognizes a God's existence by way of this white-collar job, may not make use of the god arguments of independent, natural reason because of the Bible in a man's thinking certainly? I grant that a God exists actually now naturally, but I may do this currently, since the fideism, which I advanced now, claims it.
The agnosticism (or scepticism).
His certain tendencies (and it new-positivism his point of view), may not be beside a God to present arguments (but these points of view controversial). Since, if from something we declare it how we are not able to decide on that question, we contradict ourselves, since we may say one like this then only, what excludes us from the opportunity of the decision how if we know it punctually. But we know the given question already if we know this -- on at least an introductory level -- and we are able to judge it already on this level, that beside what (the God's existence, or not-existence) we see arguments stopping with a bigger probability.
With a word: this point of view rather the averting of the question, to which all men have the right, -- only not sure -- that is worth it for him, but let everybody dump this away then after he recognizes the arguments why it is important with regard to us whether there is a God, or is not.
After we checked that the decompression of the god arguments is eligible (so not point of view botched from the beginning), we look at it, what kind of arguments the theists formulate. The arguments fundamentally into an of two kinds group arrangeable: the a prior, and the a posterior into a group. Let us disregard the historical background and the conceptual modifications now, and let us speak merely in connection with the God question these concepts from his meaning.
It the a prior, "the organoleptic experience antecedent"* + universal and necessary concepts, marks judgements and an argumentation. It the a prior all statements like that, inference, which one universally (so onto all of the cases of the inference) true, concerned inevitably true. That is, if I claim that all bachelors are unmarried, this an the a prior statement, drawn need-like one true (since there are not married bachelors), that is onto each single bachelor true, and already before the experience it. I do not have to turn with an other word to the experience to it in order for me to check that his wife is not really for Peter if I know it about him once, he is single bachelor. Is not needed, but the experience is not able to disprove the fact, since if Peter has a wife after all, then already not true onto him, that bachelor. That is what is the a prior item, it always logically necessary, undeniable, because if we would try to deny it (for example: there are married bachelors) we would make a self-liquidating, controversial statement then (the there are married bachelors with a statement). It the a prior statements only first heavy to realize, but then already not. Some examples: The part of a thing less, than whole; all dances, motion; all bodies have expansion etc.
That a posterior concept (and judgements, inferences) it reports his contrary just, than it the a prior. So: "the organoleptic experience follower"** + partial (particular) and potential (contingent). That a posterior concepts I postpone it here, but that a posterior judgements (and inferences) the ones that derive from the perception, for example: This chair is small. Than we see it, this a partial judgement (since does not expand on all chairs), and potential judgement (since the chairs are small possibly only, but they may be big).
* I do not see it, I do not hear it, I do not feel it, I do not taste it, I do not smell it
** I see it, I hear it, I feel it, I taste it, I smell it
The strength of the arguments.
As soon as from the above ones visible, not too food with a tear like that this man for his ghost. Though, if somebody is looking for the road really finds the manner of the fact that it should be allowed to get into the neighbourhood of a God's knowledge. The visitor may get the hang of the philosophies of the people lived sometime on the next sides.
The examination of the God arguments
I do not want you to convince! - than for you, my opinion is in that manner, and on these sides an, with the Bible harmonising (this aim) you may read an opinion. The understanding it is sent by the God in the peoples' heart, the persuasion is because of him in this manner. Considering the profile of the website, the life deals with his things, and is connected to this tightly the intellectual, and the physical cleanness. I do not think of the deficiency of the bathing, but our body (our health) onto his poisoning happening on innumerable manners (alcohol, cigarette, drugs and the poisons coming from the soiled environment into our organization). Many people, this question is approached diversely, but a God gets lost with the turning of approaching into a general direction always. Let us not be wise in our own eye because this was never useful to the man. If the world (own) we prefer his wisdom to a God's wisdom, we had the aim taken away already, but let us see it how the Bible and the common wit prove a God's existence?
The philosophy.
The modern age begat the diverse forms of the anti-Christian and the atheism, that alternative religions, doctrines were created. Like this the diverse forms of the humanism, than for example: the evolutionism, materialism, hedonism etc. (the number of the religions is estimated at one around 10000 on the world today). But we look at it, what that humanism?
The humanism one of the philosophical tendencies of the mature European Middle Ages with a big effect, the ideological background of the Renaissance age style was in one. His essence approximately was a turn which can be summarized in such a way compared to the earlier God centre. The humanism did not go hand in hand with atheism, but laid a much bigger emphasis on the earthly existence, than early. His roots date back to the Italy at which the strong civil traditions are, the shipmen of which, his bankers and commercial in the course of the crusades onto a considerable property and an implement was put onto knowledge. Francesco Petrarca (1304-1374), the father of the humanism.
This is only a short, abridged definition naturally. In a nutshell the essence: our outlook changed to anthropocentric one. In as much would like to know more in connection with the topic, then here on the side finds Google earner. For the thoughts written down here not the aim of his that the Christian lifestyle should be contrasted with other assumptions, but it, that let them shed light on the distinctnesses of their norms and their thinking in the mirror of the Bible, and onto their nature destroying a man. I do not understand the religion by Christianity, but Holy Scripture is free of distortions for his directions his acceptance, his interpretation keeping a God before an eye. I call it if he got ready properly, we discover a God's cognizable things.
GuestSide 2006-2008 by WPM©
Egyedi keresés
