Sublime

In Sorley’s view both the natural order and the moral order are part of reality. The question, then, is: What worldview can combine these two orders into the most coherent explanatory form? Sorley argued that the best explanation is God.

Since it’s possible that people have free will, it turns out that 3 is not necessarily true. For if people have free will, they may refuse to do what God desires. So there will be any number of possible worlds that God cannot create because the people in them wouldn’t cooperate with God’s desires.

Ockham argued for a view called nominalism. Nominalists reject belief in universals. There are no shareable essences in the world. Whatever traits chickens have in common can be explained without an appeal to universals. So too for every other creature in the world, including humans. They share things in “name” (nomen) only in virtue of the

Both ontology (the existence of things) and axiology (the goodness of things) are equally and inseparably dependent on the divine word.

The defender of the argument tries to establish one horn of each dilemma and, thus, to argue for these three premises: 1. The universe had a beginning. 2. The beginning of the universe was caused. 3. The cause of the beginning of the universe was personal.

The Christian philosopher Bernard Lonergan (1904–1984), in fact, proposed an argument that was intended, in a very complicated and ingenious way, to transform this venerable philosophical intuition into something like a comprehensive philosophical proof, one that moved from the “unrestricted intelligibility” of reality to the reality of God as the

Hume claimed that the traditional arguments for God’s existence (for example, the world is an effect that needs a personal cause) were quite weak. He also said that since we cannot experience God with the five senses, the claim that God exists cannot be taken as an item of knowledge.