They are arguments beside a god's existence.
"When we talk about god arguments (if not too always, but the mostly) we wish to prove the god's of the theism existence.
The theism a so philosophical one and ideological tendency, according to which he exists with a will, and divine being managing self-awareness, who created it, 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 onto a judgement mentioning God.
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:
God personal, everlasting, wise man, immaterial being, who is the first reason of the universe quasi,. He the person who it is universe the from nothing created by (you are the chaotic one existing already substance cosmos directed it), but let himself have his own way about the world afterwards, not caring about it already longer, not intervening in his flow. This god is neutral to his creatures ethically, these creatures for him he like that, as if would not exist."
Let us come close to it the deism philosophic the man, from his divine characteristics, that Moses 1. book, 1. the 26. poem of a chapter in this manner relates:
"A god said this then: Let us form a man onto our image and onto our resemblance , and..."
The man thinks up, plans, is building! Houses, cities, bridges, aeroplanes, cars, roads, devices and generally takes possession of it if the work is ready, uses them. Meaningless, would be illogical, if work, got ready it would leave it for decay. If he is it in a man's look onto this much self-evident this behaviour, what hinders us in it then, that we presuppose that the Universe did not arise automatically in the same manner, and is not alone? If he is the two teaching his approach compare, it has to become obvious then, that from the scripture, we may recognize a god who cares about us! We he had the Bible written down for something else? (s.k.) "Altogether important it, that this god exists (or not)? - question, but very serious arguments sound besides him being a yes, important! How do we explain the concept of the existence according to our today's knowledge?Existing primarily is a philosophical concept.
Everything exists according to more points of view, from which we have knowledge."
That is; we know about a god, so exists! This in that manner can be interpreted, how, about which we do not know, it does not exist, does not exist for us at least, but this does not exclude his existence. See it: the planets, which we did not see with a unaided eye, for hudred year's before, you exist before the invention of the telescope. That is: it how we do not know about a god, or we do not want to know about him, it does not report that he does not exist yet. We look at it now, what the philosophy says about the philosophy? (s.k.)
"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 stb. that philosophy is conflicting with this, that in the deficiency of the knowledge of the things, onto assumptions, the life qualifies it building upon theories, God, nature, society, the manifestations of thinking."
[To the above statement a short comment: acceptable, with a tiny condition. You are his nothingness since he is a god's existence (in a present case his existence) the stake, the thinking, brooding, let the direction of a meditation not follow the world's outlook, but its, to whose things which is related, his god! This holds out if we accept a god's genuineness only naturally. (s.k.)]
"If we take as a starting point the fact that a god's existence is important with regard to us, we find attention for those arguments then, for evidences, that it they are struggling along to support, 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 involved in a doubt, but their argumentation depends on quite unstable bases."
He is introductory.
I would like to welcome it kind visitor and to calm, that the side not converting talks about a god with intention. Than somebody else we may relate our opinion on forums, in that manner here an, with the Bible harmonising (this aim) may read an opinion. The website, his profile considering it with our health deals, and the intellectual one is connected to this tightly, and the physical cleanness. I do not think of the neglect of the bathing, but our body (our health) onto his countless poisoning happening on a manner (alcohol, cigarette, drugs and the poisons coming from the soiled environment into our organism). Many people, they come close to this question diversely, but a god gets lost with the turning of approaching into a subjective direction always somehow. Let us not be wise in our own eye because this is never useful to a god. So: the demonstration onto a god (onto the Bible) trust, my potential individual opinion in green one legible, what is not wisdom is a modest sight in the mirror of the Bible merely. If he is 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 proves it god, god, the Bible and with the words of the common wit? (s.k.)
"The modern age the anti-Christian and the atheism begeted his diverse forms, that alternative religions, doctrines were created. Like this the diverse forms of the humanism, than pl. the evolutionism, materialism, hedonism et cetera (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 Renaissance age style was his ideological background in one. His essence approximately in that manner can be summarized, that the measure of everything the man, he is what was a big turn 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 earlier. His roots date back to strong civil Italian at who traditions are, whose shipmen they are,, 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."
Naturally this only a short one, abridged definition. 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 it should be set against themselves the Christian lifestyle somebody else with assumptions, but it, that let their norms shed light on it in the mirror of the Bible and onto the distinctnesses of their thinking, and onto their nature destroying a man. Under Christianity not the religion to be understood, but for the doctrine of Good Book objective, are free of distortions, his interpretation keeping a god before an eye. I call it if he got ready properly, we discover a god's cognizable things. (s.k.)
The god dismissive.
"Two ideological tendencies involve the grounds of the god arguments in a doubt fundamentally. One the fideism, the other one the strong agnosticism (the single certain kind of the skepticism: skepticism = the philosophy of the doubt). Than I said it their objections depend on weak feet. First immediately because he is fundamental intuitive (feeling, recogniser) we feel it by virtue of our abilities, that it is not possible to reject something already before it before we would have examined it. Secondly because both points of view are controversial, and in this manner, than so, eliminates himself, than all items, statement, system, etc. In this direction he has the fate judging, that contradicts himself, see it: Darwinism, for the universe's formation different human his assumptions reflecting an outlook.
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, may be well exists, it is bored. noble philosophy, if it is true once, that Salamon king in the preacher's book from his front 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 the fact that the respective person does not have to make something else means approximately so much, than (to wait for the roast dove) his heart sincerely to open and to transmit for a god (because he is not it for a man as a matter of fact has to be looking for a god, but has to let a god to find it out, than onto his lost sheep the shepherd)."
This notion, not only in the mirror of the Bible wrong. James apostle, a god informs us about the opinion of his letter on the successor picture in the 8. poem of the 4. chapter:
"Approach the god, and he will approach you." - that is, the first step is ours. On butter why? (s.k.)
The fideism rejects the probative value of the god arguments:
"1., dared groundlessly assume the Bible from a god his inspiration. Who represent the above point of view represent this based on the Bible. However: from that direction, that the Bible from a god inspired, sometime was needed, or would have been needed to keep up with, since the man is not born with the knowledge of this."
Daniel for a prophet's book 12. received this instruction in the 4. poem of a chapter:
"You though, Daniel, close these words, and seal this book the end his time. Many people stain scanning to be searching , and the knowledge will be abundant."
From the above quotation in that manner seems, just the research , and the accurate knowledge it (s.k.), "that could convince they, since if would have convinced, it would not be represented already, that. Their presupposition is without foundation mutually in this manner; if they would live in one of the Islamic countries for example, they would be Muslim on the same basis, and it would not be taken for true one, he is what is presupposed for true one currently.
2., because the point of view of the fideism is controversial."
44. prove this to Isaiah book, for his chapter 25. his poem:
"I nothing I make the signs of the chatterboxes. I am the person who drives the oracles crazy, who turns back the wise men, who changes their knowledge to a folly." (s.k.)
"Since he is any kind from a world view, obtaining knowledge on a faith system only in two ways is you may be: you are in that manner, that the half truth our wisdom, using our sense, we are thinking, we reflect on his tenets, from his opinions, and all of them we check it with an examination beside this they his truth duration; you are merely credulously we accept it. Mutually if he is this latter one we elect it, we will be unable to respond to the question for our seed yet then: why we believe in it, 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 earlier already then, but if he is in this manner, we may not say that he is a god then his existence, you are the Bible his divine origin, it is not possible to support it with arguments.
3., because he is the Bible, neither teaches what the fideism represents."
Paul apostle to the Roman ones for the first chapter of a written letter 19-20. says this in his poems the Bible not knowing, and the Jew, you are a Christian from nations not observing a religion:
"..., with what which is knowable from the god, it obvious between them , because the god made it obvious one for them. Because his invisible characteristics show clearly from creating the world staining, since it created from things perceptible. (s.k.)
"It follows from this poem that he is a god (at least a basis on a level), understandable the sanely thinker, by way of natural reason, from an all kinds of revelation independently. So: yet if he is Sola script lord (alone the scripture) principle we accept it (that the reformation one were his central ideas), yet then true it is left over, that from the scripture we may assure ourselves of a god's existence independently. If he is in this manner mutually, then the thoughts of the making certain and his evidences in arguments can be related, in statements can be explained."
Let us stop, and we raise our eyes to the night starry sky. What do we feel? What do we think of? We do not feel it, what kind of we are small? We know it, that from where we came? - if god we did not recognize it, then the blind ones (secular wise men, scholars) the sightless one is guided. The biblical definition of the faith, that Paul apostle, the Hebrew's written letter 11. writes in the 1. poem of a chapter:
"The faith, the waiting of the things hoped for being based on security," - against it says for the point of view of the fideism? Yes! - because the faith is certainty, knowledge, not credulity missing the knowledge though, It was said, I was audible in this manner! (s.k.)
4., "because he would be a mistake it to think, that we are able to know our way round a god's work."
Paul in an apostle's letter written to Roman ones, we may read this in the 1. poem of the 11. chapter:
"Oh, for a god's richness, for his wisdom and the depth of his knowledge. What kind of cannot be searched out his judgements, and cannot be discovered his roads." (s.k.)
"Which one could claim that a god may not make use of it certainly are independent of the Bible, the god arguments of natural reason in a man's thinking, who recognizes a god's existence by way of this white-collar job? (I grant that a god exists actually now naturally, but I may make this currently, since the fideism claims what I advanced now.)"
"The agnosticism (you are skepticism): his certain tendencies (and it neo-pozitivism his point of view) the other one according to a dismissive half, 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 if we know it punctually only, what excludes us from the opportunity of the decision how. But we know the given question already if we know this - on at least an introductory level - and on this level we are able to judge it already, that beside what (the god's existence, or not-lexistence) we see bigger arguments stopping with a probability.
With a word: this point of view rather the averting of the question, to which all men have a right, is not sure that he is worth it for him only, but let everybody decide this then afterwards, if he recognizes the arguments, that why important onto us watching whether there is a god, or is not.
After we checked that the decompression of the god arguments has place (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 prior one, and the posteriori into a group. Let us disregard the historical background now and from the conceptual modifications, and let us speak merely in connection with the god question these concepts from his meaning.
That prior one , the one before the organoleptic experience* + universal and necessary concepts, judgements and marks an argumentation. That prior one all statements like that, inference, which one universally (so onto the case of coming next on all of them) true, and inevitably true. That is, if I claim that all bachelors are unmarried, this an the prior statement, because he is true inevitably (since there are not married bachelors), that is each single is true for a bachelor, and already before the experience it. Somebody else I do not have to turn with a word to the experience to it, that let me assure myself of it, that Peter does not have a wife really if I know it about him once, that bachelor. Is not needed, but the experience is not able to disprove the fact, since is not true for him already if Peter has a wife after all, that bachelor. That is what is the prior item, it always logically necessary, undeniable, because if we would try to deny it (for example: there are married bachelors) then self-liquidating, we would make a controversial statement (the there are married bachelors with a statement). That prior one 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 posteriori concept (and judgements, inferences) his contrary is reported just, than that prior one. So: the one after the organoleptic experience** + partial (particular) and potential (contingent). That posteriori concepts I postpone it here, but that posteriori judgements (and inferences) they, that they 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, do not smell.
** I see it, my lounge, I feel it, I taste it, smell.
It redolent signs (" ") passages, from their colour independently, somebody else from writings bought quotations, the one with a green colour is the own source.
He is the human sense!
Is he chance?
?
?
?
He is to relaxing.
The similarity (homology) not onto the common ancestry (evolution) referrer evidence, but rather an common creativ (creation).
The thoughts getting to paper here, they come from a man before whose cognition the Bible was unacceptable already: for the universe's formation, for the evolution, for the thought of coming from the monkey, and the myth of the chances creating the life. Assumptions, which ones, in that manner called: based on indirect evidences, without experiences, in the possession of partial knowledge, fact they are publishing with us ("Where you were when I had a basis regarded as the land? Tells he for me, if you know it, we the sense?" Job book 38. chapter 4. poem).
We have to see that he is the first picture if we look at the above pictures an, the one with the pleasure formed by the man was made of a building. In our eye this picture the order, the harmony, the esthetics, and the human sense, and the evidence of the wonderful manifestation of an emotion. On butter the intelligence of the substance, and the blind chance made us capable one onto the creation? The additional pictures likewise from the order, from a harmony, they talk about beauty, but the sense that created them is superior to the man's high ("Because the skies taller at the land, in that manner my roads taller at your roads, and my thoughts your thoughts!" Isaiah book, 55. the 9. poem of a chapter). Things in which we should discover it are depicted, the universal one and only reason, who many people only for chance, for one above nature, or what is sadder at this yet, for non-existent one consider.
If we accept that he is Taj Mahal the embodiment of the human sense, what we say then the universe, the Earth, and onto the variegated wonderful of the life which can be found on him ("..., let us make a man for our own image, and onto our resemblance.")? If somebody does not notice it the creation work (universe, galaxies, Earth, and the life) the creator, then it blind ("Between who he is the god of this cosmic system dazzled the not believing his mind, that ..." I. Corinthians letter, 4. chapter). It, that who "the god of this cosmic system", from that. Now but, let us translate our attention it agnosticism, and let us listen to it what they have an opinion about a god's things.
GOD
