Islam asserts that the revelation of its holy book, the Quran, vindicates its divine authorship, and thus the existence of God. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as Mormonism, similarly asserts that the miraculous appearance of God, Jesus Christ, and angels to Joseph Smith and others and subsequent finding and translation of the Book of Mormon establishes the existence of God. The whole Latter Day Saint movement makes the same claim for example Community of Christ, Church of Christ (Temple Lot), Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite), etc. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), similarly asserts that the finding and translation of the Plates of Laban, also known as the Brass Plates, into the Book of the Law of the Lord and Voree plates by James Strang, One Mighty and Strong, establishes the existence of God. Various sects that have broken from the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) (such as Church of Christ With the Elijah Message and Church of Christ (Assured Way)) claim that the message brought by John the Baptist, One Mighty and Strong, to Otto Fetting and W. A. Draves in The Word of the Lord Brought to Mankind by an Angel establishes the existence of God. Arguments from testimony Arguments from testimony rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, possibly embodying the propositions of a specific revealed religion. Swinburne argues that it is a principle of rationality that one should accept testimony unless there are strong reasons for not doing so.[34] The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages. A variation of this is the argument from miracles (also referred to as the priest stories) which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God. The majority argument argues that the theism of people throughout most of recorded history and in many different places provides prima facie demonstration of Gods existence. Arguments grounded in personal experiences See also: Anecdotal evidence An argument for God is often made from an unlikely complete reversal in lifestyle by an individual towards God. Paul of Tarsus, a persecutor of the early Church, became a pillar of the Church after his conversion on the road to Damascus. Modern day examples in Evangelical Protestantism are sometimes called Born-Again Christians. The Scottish School of Common Sense led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by people without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse. That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that people accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but because common sense obliges people to accept them. The Argument from a Proper Basis argues that belief in God is properly basic; that it is similar to statements like I see a chair or I feel pain. Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither provable nor disprovable; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states. In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that human reason is able to perceive the suprasensible. Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason, and understanding. Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to a persons consciousness and unites them to one another.[35] Gods existence, then, cannot be proven (Jacobi, like Immanuel Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality), it must be felt by the mind. In Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that when a persons understanding ponders over the existence of God it encounters nothing but contradictions; the impulses of peoples hearts, however, are of more value than the understanding, and these proclaim clearly the truths of natural religion, namely, the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher, who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which people feel religious truths. According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are inessential.[36] Many modern Protestant theologians follow in Schleiermachers footsteps, and teach that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated; certainty as to this truth is only furnished to people by inner experience, feeling, and perception. Modernist Christianity also denies the demonstrability of the existence of God. According to them, one can only know something of God by means of the vital immanence, that is, under favorable circumstances the need of the divine dormant in ones subconsciousness becomes conscious and arouses that religious feeling or experience in which God reveals himself. In condemnation of this view the Oath Against Modernism formulated by Pius X, a Pope of the Catholic Church, says: Deum ... naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari etiam posse, profiteor. (I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore his existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of creation, as the cause is known through its effects.) Brahma Kumaris religion was established in 1936, when God was said to enter the body of diamond merchant Lekhraj Kripalani (1876–1969) in Hyderabad, Sindh and started to speak through him.[37][38] Hindu arguments Most schools of Hindu philosophy accept the existence of a creator god (Brahma), while some do not. The school of Vedanta argues that one of the proofs of the existence of God is the law of karma. In a commentary to Brahma Sutras (III, 2, 38, and 41), a Vedantic text, Adi Sankara, an Indian philosopher who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta, a sub-school of Vedanta, argues that the original karmic actions themselves cannot bring about the proper results at some future time; neither can super sensuous, non-intelligent qualities like adrsta—an unseen force being the metaphysical link between work and its result—by themselves mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain. The fruits, according to him, then, must be administered through the action of a conscious agent, namely, a supreme being (Ishvara).[39] A humans karmic acts result in merits and demerits. Since unconscious things generally do not move except when caused by an agent (for example, the axe moves only when swung by an agent), and since the law of karma is an unintelligent and unconscious law, Sankara argues there must be a conscious supreme Being who knows the merits and demerits which persons have earned by their actions, and who functions as an instrumental cause in helping individuals reap their appropriate fruits.[40] Thus, God affects the persons environment, even to its atoms, and for those souls who reincarnate, produces the appropriate rebirth body, all in order that the person might have the karmically appropriate experiences.[41] Thus, there must be a theistic administrator or supervisor for karma, i.e., God. The Nyaya school, one of six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, states that one of the proofs of the existence of God is karma;[42] it is seen that some people in this world are happy, some are in misery. Some are rich and some are poor. The Naiyanikas explain this by the concept of karma and reincarnation. The fruit of an individuals actions does not always lie within the reach of the individual who is the agent; there ought to be, therefore, a dispenser of the fruits of actions, and this supreme dispenser is God.[42] This belief of Nyaya, accordingly, is the same as that of Vedanta.[42] Arguiment against god existence. Each of the following arguments aims at showing either that a particular subset of gods do not exist (by showing them as inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with known scientific or historical facts) or that there is insufficient reason to believe in them. Some[which?] of these arguments suggest that there is evidence of absence of a god. Empirical arguments Empirical arguments depend on empirical data in order to prove their conclusions. The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God as described in scriptures—such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, the Muslim Quran, Hindu Vedas, the Book of Mormon or the Bahai Aqdas—by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts. To be effective this argument requires the other side to hold that its scriptural record is inerrant, or at least to assert that a proper understanding of scripture gives rise to knowledge of Gods existence. The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies. The destiny of the unevangelized, by which persons who have never even heard of a particular revelation might be harshly punished for not following its dictates. The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that lifeforms, including humans, seem to exhibit poor design. The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers. The argument from parsimony (using Occams razor) contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in gods,[43] the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon. The analogy of Russells teapot argues that the burden of proof for the existence of God lies with the theist rather than the atheist. The Russells teapot analogy can be considered an extension of Occams Razor. Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their book The Grand Design that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. In this view, it is accepted that some entity exists that needs no creator, and that entity is called God. This is known as the first-cause argument for the existence of God. Both authors claim however, that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings.[44] Some Christian philosophers disagree.[45] Deductive arguments Deductive arguments attempt to prove their conclusions by deductive reasoning from true premises. The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is a counter-argument to the argument from design. The argument from design claims that a complex or ordered structure must be designed. However, a god that is responsible for the creation of a universe would be at least as complicated as the universe that it creates. Therefore, it too must require a designer. And its designer would require a designer also, ad infinitum. The argument for the existence of God is then a logical fallacy with or without the use of special pleading. The Ultimate 747 gambit states that God does not provide an origin of complexity, it simply assumes that complexity always existed. It also states that design fails to account for complexity, which natural selection can explain. The omnipotence paradox suggests that the concept of an omnipotent entity is logically contradictory, from considering a question like: Can God create a rock so big that He cannot move it? or If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than Himself? The omniscience paradox shows a different angle of the omnipotence paradox. If God is omnipotent, then he should be able to change the future to an alternate future that is unknown to him, conflicting with his omniscience. Similarly, an omniscient god would know the position of all atoms in the universe over its ~14 billion-year history as well as its infinite future. To know that, gods memory needs to be bigger than the infinite set of possible states in the current universe. Also, a twist on the omnipotence paradox is that Gods omniscience is logically contradictory, since He could not think up a puzzle or code that he could not solve. The problem of hell is the idea that eternal damnation for actions committed in a finite existence contradicts Gods omnibenevolence or omnipresence. The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will—or has allotted the same freedom to his creations—by arguing that the two properties are contradictory. According to the argument, if God already knows the future, then humanity is destined to corroborate with his knowledge of the future and not have true free will to deviate from it. Therefore our free will contradicts an omniscient god. Another argument attacks the existence of an omniscient god who has free will directly in arguing that the will of God himself would be bound to follow whatever God foreknows himself doing throughout eternity. A counter-argument against the Cosmological argument (chicken or the egg) takes its assumption that things cannot exist without creators and applies it to God, setting up an infinite regress. This attacks the premise that the universe is the second cause (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause). Theological noncognitivism, as used in literature, usually seeks to disprove the god-concept by showing that it is unverifiable by scientific tests. The anthropic argument states that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect, He would have created other morally perfect beings instead of imperfect humans. Inductive arguments Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning. The atheist-existentialist argument for the non-existence of a perfect sentient being states that if existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being cannot be complete or perfect. It is touched upon by Jean-Paul Sartre in Being and Nothingness. Sartres phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms. The argument is echoed thus in Salman Rushdies novel Grimus: That which is complete is also dead. The no reason argument tries to show that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically by creating the universe, because it would have no needs, wants, or desires since these very concepts are subjectively human. Since the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist. This argument is expounded upon by Scott Adams in the book Gods Debris, which puts forward a form of Pandeism as its fundamental theological model. A similar argument is put forward in Ludwig von Misess Human Action. He referred to it as the praxeological argument and claimed that a perfect being would have long ago satisfied all its wants and desires and would no longer be able to take action in the present without proving that it had been unable to achieve its wants faster—showing it imperfect. The historical induction argument concludes that since most theistic religions throughout history (e.g. ancient Egyptian religion, ancient Greek religion) and their gods ultimately come to be regarded as untrue or incorrect, all theistic religions, including contemporary ones, are therefore most likely untrue/incorrect by induction. It is implied as part of Stephen F. Roberts popular quotation: I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. Subjective arguments See also: Anecdotal evidence Similar to the subjective arguments for the existence of God, subjective arguments against the supernatural mainly rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, or the propositions of a revealed religion in general. The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and from the past, who disbelieve or strongly doubt the existence of God. The conflicted religions argument notes that many religions give differing accounts as to what God is and what God wants; since all the contradictory accounts cannot be correct, many if not all religions must be incorrect. The disappointment argument claims that if, when asked for, there is no visible help from God, there is no reason to believe that there is a God. Hindu arguments Atheistic Hindu doctrines cite various arguments for rejecting a creator-God or Ishvara. The Sāṁkhyapravacana Sūtra of the Samkhya school states that there is no philosophical place for a creationist God in this system. It is also argued in this text that the existence of Ishvara (God) cannot be proved and hence cannot be admitted to exist.[46] Classical Samkhya argues against the existence of God on metaphysical grounds. For instance, Samkhya argue that an unchanging God cannot be the source of an ever changing world. It says God was a necessary metaphysical assumption demanded by circumstances.[47] The Sutras of Samkhya endeavour to prove that the idea of God is inconceivable and self-contradictory, and some[which?] commentaries speak plainly on this subject. The Sankhya- tattva-kaumudi, commenting on Karika 57, argues that a perfect God can have no need to create a world, and if Gods motive is kindness, Samkhya questions whether it is reasonable to call into existence beings who while non-existent had no suffering. Samkhya postulates that a benevolent deity ought to create only happy creatures, not an imperfect world like the real world.[48] Proponents of the school of Mimamsa, which is based on rituals and orthopraxy, decided that the evidence allegedly proving the existence of God was insufficient. They argue that there was no need to postulate a maker for the world, just as there was no need for an author to compose the Vedas or a god to validate the rituals.[49] Mimamsa argues that the gods named in the Vedas have no existence apart from the mantras that speak their names. In that regard, the power of the mantras is what is seen as the power of gods. ConclusionsEdit Europeans polled who believe in a god, according to Eurobarometer in 2005. North Americans polled about religious identity. Conclusions on the existence of God can be divided along numerous axes, producing a variety of orthogonal classifications. Theism and atheism are positions of belief (or lack of it), while gnosticism and agnosticism are positions of knowledge (or the lack of it). Ignosticism concerns belief regarding Gods conceptual coherence. Apatheism concerns belief regarding the practical importance of whether God exists. Theism The theistic conclusion is that there is sufficient reason to believe that god or gods exists, or that arguments do not matter as much as the personal witness of the holy spirit, as argued by preeminent apologist William Lane Craig. The Catholic Church, following the teachings of Saint Paul the Apostle, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and the First Vatican Council, which affirms that Gods existence can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.[51] In Christian faith, theologians and philosophers make a distinction between: (a) preambles of faith and (b) articles of faith. The preambles include alleged truths contained in revelation which are nevertheless demonstrable by reason, e.g., the immortality of the soul, the existence of God. The articles of faith, on the other hand, contain truths that cannot be proven or reached by reason alone and presuppose the truths of the preambles, e.g., the Holy Trinity, is not demonstrable and presupposes the existence of God. The argument that the existence of God can be known to all, even prior to exposure to any divine revelation, predates Christianity. St. Paul made this argument when he said that pagans were without excuse because since the creation of the world [Gods] invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.[52] In this Paul alludes to the proofs for a creator, later enunciated by St. Thomas[53] and others, but that had also been explored by the Greek philosophers. Another apologetical school of thought, including Dutch and American Reformed thinkers (such as Abraham Kuyper, Benjamin Warfield, Herman Dooyeweerd), emerged in the late 1920s. This school was instituted by Cornelius Van Til, and came to be popularly called Presuppositional apologetics (though Van Til himself felt transcendental would be a more accurate title). The main distinction between this approach and the more classical evidentialist approach is that the presuppositionalist denies any common ground between the believer and the non-believer, except that which the non-believer denies, namely, the assumption of the truth of the theistic worldview. In other words, presuppositionalists do not believe that the existence of God can be proven by appeal to raw, uninterpreted, or brute facts, which have the same (theoretical) meaning to people with fundamentally different worldviews, because they deny that such a condition is even possible. They claim that the only possible proof for the existence of God is that the very same belief is the necessary condition to the intelligibility of all other human experience and action. They attempt to prove the existence of God by means of appeal to the transcendental necessity of the belief—indirectly (by appeal to the unavowed presuppositions of the non-believers worldview) rather than directly (by appeal to some form of common factuality). In practice this school utilizes what have come to be known as transcendental arguments. In these arguments they claim to demonstrate that all human experience and action (even the condition of unbelief, itself) is a proof for the existence of God, because Gods existence is the necessary condition of their intelligibility. Alvin Plantinga presents an argument for the existence of God using modal logic.[54] Others have said that the logical and philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God miss the point. The word God has a meaning in human culture and history that does not correspond to the beings whose existence is supported by such arguments, assuming they are valid. The real question is not whether a most perfect being or an uncaused first cause exist. The real question is whether Jehovah, Zeus, Ra, Krishna, or any gods of any religion exist, and if so, which gods? On the other hand, many theists equate all monotheistic or henotheistic most perfect Beings, no matter what name is assigned to them/him, as the one monotheistic God (one example would be understanding the Muslim Allah, Christian Yhwh, and Chinese Shangdi as different names for the same Being). Most of these arguments do not resolve the issue of which of these figures is more likely to exist. These arguments fail to make the distinction between immanent gods and a Transcendent God. Some[who?] Christians note that the Christian faith teaches salvation is by faith,[55] and that faith is reliance upon the faithfulness of God. The most extreme example of this position is called fideism, which holds that faith is simply the will to believe, and argues that if Gods existence were rationally demonstrable, faith in its existence would become superfluous. Søren Kierkegaard argued that objective knowledge, such as 1+1=2, is unimportant to existence. If God could rationally be proven, his existence would be unimportant to humans.[citation needed] It is because God cannot rationally be proven that his existence is important to us. In The Justification of Knowledge, the Calvinist theologian Robert L. Reymond argues that believers should not attempt to prove the existence of God. Since he believes all such proofs are fundamentally unsound, believers should not place their confidence in them, much less resort to them in discussions with non-believers; rather, they should accept the content of revelation by faith. Reymonds position is similar to that of his mentor Gordon Clark, which holds that all worldviews are based on certain unprovable first premises (or, axioms), and therefore are ultimately unprovable. The Christian theist therefore must simply choose to start with Christianity rather than anything else, by a leap of faith. This position is also sometimes called presuppositional apologetics, but should not be confused with the Van Tillian variety. Atheism Main article: Atheism The atheistic conclusion is that the arguments and evidence both indicate there is insufficient reason to believe that any gods exist, and that personal subjective religious experiences are indistinguishable from misapprehension; therefore one should not believe that a god exists. Positive atheism Main article: Negative and positive atheism Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is a form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[56][57][58] The strong atheist explicitly asserts the non-existence of gods. Some[who?] strong atheists further assert that the existence of gods is logically impossible, stating that the combination of attributes which God may be asserted to have (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence) are logically contradictory, incomprehensible, or absurd, and therefore the existence of such a god is a priori false. Metaphysical naturalism is a common worldview associated with strong atheism. In Science Refutes Religion, Isaacson argues an empirical form of strong atheism. If God is in the world (as opposed to being an abstract being), then science effectively proves there is no god. Because the absence of evidence is overwhelming. There is no more reason to believe that a god-of-this-world exists than there is to believe that Zeus exists, or that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy exist, or the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot.[59] If, on the other hand, God is an abstract being, then it means (by definition) that god doesnt interfere in the lives of us mortals. He doesnt answer prayers. There was no burning bush. etc.[60] Negative atheism Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any type of atheism other than positive, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.[56][57][58] Agnosticism Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[61] Agnosticism as a broad umbrella term does not define ones belief or disbelief in gods; agnostics may still identify themselves as theists or atheists.[62] Strong agnosticism Strong agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist. Weak agnosticism Weak agnosticism is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknown but not necessarily unknowable. Agnostic theism Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. For theism, an agnostic theist believes that the proposition at least one deity exists is true, but, per agnosticism, believes that the existence of gods is unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god(s) they believe in.[63] Agnostic atheism Agnostic atheism is the view of those who do not claim to know the existence of any deity but do not believe in any.[62] The theologian Robert Flint explains: If a man have failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist, although he assume no superhuman knowledge, but merely the ordinary human power of judging of evidence. If he go farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist, an agnostic-atheist—an atheist because an agnostic.[64] Apatheism The apatheist concludes the question of Gods existence or nonexistence to be of little or no practical importance.[citation needed] Ignosticism The ignostic (or igtheist) usually concludes that the question of Gods existence or nonexistence, like many similar questions, is usually not worth discussing because concepts like God are usually not sufficiently clearly defined. Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[65] while others have considered it to be distinct. ReferencesEdit see e.g. The Rationality of Theism quoting Quentin Smith God is not dead in academia; it returned to life in the late 1960s. They cite the shift from hostility towards theism in Paul Edwardss Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) to sympathy towards theism in the more recent Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy The Argument From Perfection. Retrieved 2013-03-06. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 47; cf. Canons of the First Vatican Council, 2:2 Barron, Robert (2011). Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith. The Doubleday Religious Publishing Group. ISBN 9780307720511. Hebbar, Neria Harish. The Principal Upanishads. Retrieved 2007-01-12. The Argument From Non-Cognitivism. Retrieved 2008-02-11. isms of the week: Agnosticism and Ignosticism. The Economist. 2010-07-28. Retrieved December 19, 2011. Scott C. Todd, A View from Kansas on that Evolution Debate, Nature Vol. 401, Sep. 30, 1999, p. 423 Those holding this range from Dawkins to Ward to Plantinga. Polkinghorne, John (1998). Belief in God in an Age of Science. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07294-5. see his God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God Cornell (1990) ISBN 0-8014-9735-3 and Warranted Christian Belief OUP (2000) ISBN 0-19-513193-2 See e.g. the Beale/Howson debate published Prospect May, 1998 see e.g. The Probability of God by Stephen D. Unwin its criticism in The God Delusion, and the critical comment in that article. iep.utm.edu. iep.utm.edu. 2004-08-30. Retrieved 2013-05-14. Klostermaier, Klaus K. (2007). A survey of Hinduism. Albany: Sate University of New York Press. p. 357. ISBN 0-7914-7081-4. Sudesh Narang (1984)The Vaisnava Philosophy According to Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, p. 30 Maria Ekstrand; Bryant, Edwin H. (2004). The Hare Krishna movement: the postcharismatic fate of a religious transplant. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 7. ISBN 0-231-12256-X. Aquinas, Thomas (1274). Summa Theologica. Part 1, Question 2, Article 3. Aquinas, Thomas; Kreeft, Peter (1990). Summa of the Summa. Ignatius Press. pp. 65–69. ISBN 9780898703009. Davies, Brian (1992). The Thought of Thomas Aquinas. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 9780191520440. Nolan, Lawrence. Descartes Ontological Argument. Stanford. Aquinas, Thomas (1274). Summa Theologica. Part 1, Question 2. Kreeft, Peter (2009). Socrates Meets Kant. Ignatius Press. ISBN 9781586173487. Himma, Kenneth Einar (27 April 2005). Ontological Argument. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved October 12, 2011. Plantinga The Ontological Argument Text. Mind.ucsd.edu. Retrieved 2013-05-14. (Stuttgart, 1908) Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design. Retrieved 2013-05-14. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005) (“the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity”). , Ruling p. 26. A selection of writings and quotes of intelligent design supporters demonstrating this identification of the Christian god with the intelligent designer are found in the pdf Horses MouthArchived June 27, 2008 at the Wayback Machine (PDF) by Brian Poindexter, dated 2003. Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief Alvin Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function
Posted on: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:19:42 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015