masood khoshtinat; Amir Mohbian; mahdi najafiafra
Volume 10, Issue 2 , March 2022, , Pages 67-87
Abstract
The question of the beginning and end of existence is one of the fundamental issues that philosophers have addressed with different approaches such as evidentialism. Antony Flew is one of the philosophers of evidentialism who, during the two periods of his scientific life, based on evidence, sought the ...
Read More
The question of the beginning and end of existence is one of the fundamental issues that philosophers have addressed with different approaches such as evidentialism. Antony Flew is one of the philosophers of evidentialism who, during the two periods of his scientific life, based on evidence, sought the analysis of theism and first turned to atheism and then to deism. Of course, changing his belief in God does not mean completely changing all the beliefs of his atheistic times. What is his view in the age of atheism and deism and the analysis of what Flew has actually preserved from his atheistic thought and what he has changed,, and to what extent his reasons are compatible with its results and what weaknesses are there in his theistic thought, are the subjects of this article. As a result of this analysis, it will be clear that Flew still stands on many of the positions of his time of atheism. His thought has weaknesses, and Flew has contradictions about his reasons and conclusions.
Naeimeh poormohammadi; AhmadReza Hashemi
Volume 9, Issue 2 , January 2020, , Pages 143-167
Abstract
We are more or less familiar with William's evidential problem of evil. He denies the existence of God or (in his later articles) the possibility of the existence of God by not finding God's justifing reasons for permiting evil. Theists, on the other hand, have tried to expose God's justifiing reasons ...
Read More
We are more or less familiar with William's evidential problem of evil. He denies the existence of God or (in his later articles) the possibility of the existence of God by not finding God's justifing reasons for permiting evil. Theists, on the other hand, have tried to expose God's justifiing reasons for permiting evil and to offer justifications called Theodicy. In the meantime, Skeptical Theism in response to the problem of evil has chosen another way. The claim is that we human beings may not be able to fundamentally grasp God's justifiing reasons for permiting evil, and since not finding reason is not a strong reason for not having a reason, the evil argument falls. In this article, we first explain the skeptical theological approach of William Alston and Michael Bergman, and then, based on the challenges posed by other philosophers of religion and theologians, conclude that the skeptical theological approach has not yet been plausible. In this article we have considered only moral challenges.We have extracted, formulated and analyzed eleven challenges from various texts of philosophers of religion, and carefully followed the problems and re-answers from both sides of the conflict, and finally came to the conclusion that skeptical theism answer is not still sufficient and convincing. It seems that the evil argument must still be resisted on the apologentic side of Theodicy.
Qorban Elmi; Mohammad Hossein Mohammadpour
Volume 2, Issue 2 , January 2014, , Pages 59-79
Abstract
This paper aims at studying Nagarjuna's approach on the question of God's existence. The study reveals that resorting to theological views such astheism, atheism, agnosticism and pantheism cannot present a correct understanding of God's existence from Madhyamika's perspective. By making a critical analysis, ...
Read More
This paper aims at studying Nagarjuna's approach on the question of God's existence. The study reveals that resorting to theological views such astheism, atheism, agnosticism and pantheism cannot present a correct understanding of God's existence from Madhyamika's perspective. By making a critical analysis, Nagarjuna attempts to reach an idea of a personal God that the public have. This paper tries to systematize Nagarjuna's arguments with a method of philosophy of religion. Unlike what is believed, Madhyamika's real approach on the existence of God is neither monotheistic nor atheistic; because this school accepts neither the statement "there is God' nor the statement "there is no God'.
