furniture chairs Furniture Chairs Bush Office Furniture
Related Topics:
furniture
furniture chairs
chairs
bar stools
kids furniture
restaurant furniture
office chairs
living room furniture
tables
bedroom furniture
office furniture
school furniture
home office furniture
File Cabinets
beds
sofas
folding storage
ottomans
barstools
benches
Children
Chairs and Seating
childrens furniture
office chair
modern
Church Furniture
chair
home furnishings
home furniture
furniture store
contemporary
Lobby and Office Furniture
contemporary furniture
Bush Office Furniture
outdoor furniture
restaurant chairs
leather furniture
Desk Chair
Reception Furniture
recliners
patio furniture
bar furniture
wood
discount office furniture
sofa
Office Collections
patio tables
student desks
sleeper sofa
discount home office furniture
office chair furniture
sofa sleepers
dressers
Office Chairs Office Chairs Office Chair
nightstands
prechool chairs
north carolina furniture
stackable chairs
chrome
furntiure
Office and Computer Desks
preschool furniture
rattan furniture
early learning furniture
soft play furniture
sealy
computer chair
Computer Chairs
Computer Desk
Office Desks
pre-school furniture
school tables
school chairs
File Cabinet
outdoor restaurant furniture
sand and water tables
daycare supplies
Office Workcenter Collections
rugs and accessories. furniture store
rocking chairs
|
Furniture Chairs Bush Office Furniture furniture chairs
.
Furniture Chairs Bush Office Furniture furniture chairs Information
The Three Most Popular Arguments For The Existence Of God
The
Ontological Argument
One of the most important attempts to demonstrate
the existence of God is the ontological argument of Saint Anselm, an
11th-century theologian. Anselm's argument maintains that God, defined as the
greatest being that can be conceived, must exist, since a being that does not
exist would by virtue of that fact lack an attribute that contributes to its
greatness. Critics have questioned, however, whether existence actually
contributes to a being's greatness.
The Cosmological Argument
Another important attempt to provide a rational justification for the
existence of God is the cosmological argument, also called the argument from
first cause. Aquinas and 18th-century English philosopher Samuel Clarke, among
others, developed this justification. One important version of this argument
contends that to explain the existence of the contingent universe it is
essential to propose a necessary being, a being whose existence is not
contingent on anything else. This necessary being is God. Critics have argued
that the existence of the universe might be a brute fact—a fact without any
explanation. They assert that proving the existence of a necessary being is not
the same as proving the existence of God. A necessary being might lack some of
the properties considered essential to God, such as being all good. In a version
of the cosmological argument found in contemporary scientific cosmology, God is
postulated as the explanation for the big bang, the theory that a gigantic
explosion created the material universe. Although contemporary theists, such as
American philosopher William Lane Craig, maintain that a first cause is
necessary to explain the big bang, critics contend that recent scientific
theories indicate that the universe could have arisen spontaneously.
The
Teleological Argument
According to the teleological argument for the
existence of God—also known as the argument from design—the universe is like a
machine. The best-known supporter of this view is 18th-century theologian
William Paley. According to this theory, because machines are created by
intelligent beings, and because the universe may be thought of as a single,
highly complex machine, it is likely that the universe was created by a great
intelligence, understood to be God. The classic critique of this argument,
presented by 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume, maintains that the
analogy to a machine is weak and that other analogies are just as strong. For
instance, the universe may be thought of as a living organism, in which case the
universe would have been created by reproduction rather than by design.
Which argument do I agree with?
I think that the ontological
argument is not really making an argument for the existence of God, but is
really playing with the fact that it is impossible for humanity to define a
being we are not sure exists. Therefore, if you go by his definition God does
exist. However, how do we define God? Is God the greatest being or is he simply
the creator of the world. In which ways does our God need to be great?
Then
there's the cosmological argument which defeats itself because if there had to
be a first cause to create the universe then there had to be a first cause to
great god and a first cause to create the being that created god and so onnot
only that but science has told us the universe could have been created
spontaneously.
The only argument I find little or no fault in is the
Teleological argument. Although the universe could have arisen spontaneously,
not a universe with such complexity and utter efficiency like the one we live
in, a world where the scale is balanced just right to support life, a people
with such intelligence. Because the world is so well designed there must be an
intelligent designer that being God. Darwin's theory of evolution and natural
adaptation were simply observations of the amazing design of the world. Our
animals have been designed to adapt to changes in climate and the increase of
prey. I don't believe it's possible for such intricacies to exist in an
accidental universe.
Why bother questioning God's existence when it can
never be proven?
The human mind naturally demands answers. Although,
intellectual answers are not sufficient to explain spiritual reality of God,
there is nothing wrong with investigating his existence.
God gave us our
intellectual ability it is an ability that God has inserted in us. Why should we
use that ability to research science, mathematics, biology and all other fields
besides that of divinity? When we use our mind and thinking processes to find
evidence for the existence of god we are using a God given ability to search for
the truth. Intellectual search for God should not necessarily be in conflict to
spiritual or emotional search for God. Each can strengthen and enhance the
other.
It is true that we cannot absolutely prove or not prove the existence
of God because we cannot get God and put him in a human laboratory and analyze
him. But we can look to God like a super telescope looks into the universe in
quest of understanding it. No lens, no matter how large can explain the whole
universe, but still these lenses teach us a lot about the universe. To use our
God given intellectual lenses to look into the creator will contribute to our
knowledge of God.
Read the Bible as it is Truth it is the word and the word
is God .
Yes god does exsist!
|
