Philosophy Of Religion

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION The philosophical study of religion deals with the concept of miracles, prayer, the nature and existence of God, how religion and other systems of judgment relate to each other, and the problem of evil. Although the philosophy of religion is not theology, it has nothing to do with the question of "what is Allah?" On the other hand, religious philosophy looks at the words and concepts contained in religious traditions. RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE Religious language can often be considered mysterious, inaccurate. And it's not clear. In the twentieth century, philosophers began to conquer the standard of religious language and sought to reject any empirical statement, which stated that it was meaningless. This school of thought is known as logical positive. According to the theological position, only claims that contain empirical conclusions or from mathematics and logic can be considered meaningful. This means that many religious statements, even those relating to God (such as "Yahweh is a merciful and gracious God"), cannot be proven and are therefore considered meaningless. In the second half of the twentieth century, like many philosophers began to find the logical positive statement to be problematic And the linguistic work by Ludwig Wittgenstein and his work In naturalism by Willard van Orman Quine became increasingly More popularly, the logical position began to fade. By the 1970s, the tie school of thought had practically collapsed, opening up opportunities for new theories and interpretations of religious language. After the logical positive, there are two schools of thought related to religious language: realist and anti-realism. Those who believe in realism believe that language corresponds to what actually happens, while those who believe in antirealism believe that language does not correspond to reality (meaningful language means human behavior and experience). CRIME PROBLEM The most significant argument regarding theism is known as the "problem of evil." The problem of crime can be expressed in many different ways: Logical Problems of Crime The first illuminated by the epicure, the logical problem of evil is perhaps the most stringent objection to the existence of God. According to Epicurus, there are four possibilities: 1. If God wants to prevent evil and is incapable, then God is weak. 2. If God is able to get rid of evil but does not want to, then God is an evil person 3. If God does not want to get rid of evil and is not able to get rid of evil. Then God is evil and weak, and therefore, he is not God 4. If God wants to get rid of evil and is able to get rid of evil. Then why is evil in the world, and why doesn't God get rid of it? St. Thomas Aquinas thinks of the logical proposal of evil by stating that it is not clear why he or the absence of evil would make the world a better place, because without the evsl, there would be no meaning of goodness, justice, justice, or any other argument against the logical problem of the offer. Vnion asthe"unknowrs purpose defense," states that remembering God can never really know. Mankind has limitations when trying to extinguish God's motives. Empirical Problems of Crime Created by David Hume, the empirical statement of evil claims that if one is not exposed to prior commitments such as religious beliefs the experience of evil in the world will lead one to atheism and the idea of a good and almighty God will not exist. The Probability Argument of Crime This is an argument that the existence of evil is proof that there is no God. THEODICY Theodicy is a branch of philosophy that tries to reconcile belief in a kind, omniscient, and omnipotent god with the existence of evil and suffering. Theodicy acknowledges that God is capable of ending evil and that evil exists, and tries to understand why God does not stop it. One of the most famous theodicy theories is Leib Niz's claim that this world is the most optimal among other possible worlds and that since the world was created by a perfect god, it must be the most balanced and possibly the best world that exists. The Argument for the Existence of God There are three main types of arguments in favor of the existence of God: ontological, cosmological, and teleological. Ontological Arguments Ontologists use a priori abstract reasoning to state that the concept of God and the ability to speak of God influence that God must exist. When we talk about god. We are talking about perfect beings; Nothing is bigger. Since it is better for us to have a god who exists than a god who does not exist and we call him a perfect being, we imply that he exists. Ontology contains false arguments, because ontology can be used to show the existence of perfect objects. According to Kant. Attraction is a property of a concept and not an object. Cosmological Arguments Stating that because the world and the universe exist, this implies that they were created and remain in existence, by beings. There must be a "first mover," which is God, because infinite setbacks are impossible. Cosmology, the Ther- argument is two types of cosmological arguments: 1. Capital (which states that the universe may never have existed and therefore there needs to be an explanation for why it does not exist) 2. Earthly (which states that there must have been a point in time when the universe began to exist, and that this existence must have been caused by something outside the universe, i.e., God) Teleological Arguments The teleological argument, also referred to as the design of the result of intelligence, states that since there is order in the world and the universe, the world must have been created by a creature who had a specific purpose to create life in the mind. MIRACLES In the philosophy of religion, there is a lot of debate about what can and cannot be considered a miracle. When discussing miracles, phi osophers refer to events that are unusual and cannot be explained through natural causes. This event, according to some philosophical celebrities, must therefore be the result of a divinity. David Hume opposed the idea of oi miraclea, calling it a "violation of the laws of nature". Hume argues that the only evidence to support miracles is witness testimony, while evidence to support natural laws is obtained through uniformity of experiences from people over time. Therefore, the testimony of the testimony of a miracle needs to be greater than the support for the laws of nature, and since there is not enough evidence to show this, there is no tendency to believe that violations of these kinds of laws of nature can occur. Others objected to Hume accepting miracles rather than believing it was not a violation of natural law. These philosophers argued that the laws of nature describe what is most likely to happen under certain conditions, therefore, miracles are simply an exception to the usual process. Religious philosophers argue that Hume had an inadequate understanding of probability and that looking at the frequency of events that occur is not enough to determine probability.