Natural theo- theology or knowledge of God based on observed facts and experience apart from divine revelation.

Rationalism- reason not experience. Empiricism- all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses. Evidentialism- justification of a belief depends solely on the evidence for it. Experientialism- experience is the source of all knowledge. Phenomenology- an approach that concentrates on the study of consciousness and the objects of direct experience. Metaphysics- first principles of things, abstract concepts. Ontology- nature of being. A priori- independent of experience. A Posteriori- justification is dependent on experience. Via negative/apophatic theo- describe God, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God/The languge we use to talk of things in the world must inevitably fail to capture what god is/ god transcends the limit signified by words we normally use/ mysticism/ Pseudo- Dionysius. Plantinga religious belief- it is rational to believe in God without evidence Vs natural theo. Univocal- it means precisely the same thing in each sentence. Equivocal- it means something completely different in each sentence. Analogical language- comparison or a similarity between two different things. Metaphorical- designates one thing is used to designate another/implicit comparison/ it activates our senses. Classical found- knowledge of God is self evident/Aquinas. Logical positivism- religious blief is meaningless/ strong verification. Weak Verifi- a statement is factual only if sensory experience can confirm it. Strong verif- without eveidence cant belive/Clifford. Inferential reason- Reasoning and answering questions. Prima Facielegally sufficient to establish a fact or a case unless disproved/ true, valid, or sufficient at first impression. Ineffable God- concerned with ideas that cannot or should not be expressed in spoken words. Intuitive knowledgeIt is perceived through the senses and left in it's raw perception for the mind to understand/common sense. Ad Infinitum- Latin term/forever. Ontology - the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being. Deontology - the study of the nature of duty and obligation. Axiom - a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. Analogia Entis (Analogy of Being) - It is the notion that the very being (entis) of the created world offers an analogy by which we can (in a very limited way) comprehend God -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------General- Plato- reality is not confined by what we can observe thru senses/ universals r real, before and apart from objects/ metaphysical/ humans are immaterial. Aristotle- universals r real, before n in objects/ conceptual realism/ reality can be perceived only from sensory sense/ the universe is designed by an intelligent being n humans have non material soul. Ockham- universals belong to the realm of though. Tertullian- I believe bcz its absurd. Anselm of Cant- I belive I order that I may understand/ faith seeking understanding/ faith had a priority but reason was to illuminate faith/ faith was nt a precondition for all knowledge. Descartes- Do not prove the existence of God. Just ask, what can be certain -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------God Talk: Presupposition- God is fundementaly n essentially different from anything else. Language refers things in the world. Then how is God talk possible? Atheist argument- no evidence of God in the world. God is not like anything in the world. God cannot be described. Therefore god does not exist n no knowledge or description abt god is truthful. Plantinga- Gods existence is properly basic. It is entirely right, rational, reasonable, and proper to believe in God without any evidence or argument at all/ God is the premier person, the first and chief exampler of personhood. Thomas Aquinas- Natural theology and classical found. some intelligible truths abt god r open to the human reasn/senses; bt others r beyond human knowledge/ The holy spirit can empower a person to have the highest wisdom instantaneously/ philosophy can give adequate reason for thinking of God as omnipotent, just or merciful/ The truth of reason doesnt oppose the truth of xian faith/ The knowledge of the principles that are known to us naturally has been implanted in us by God; for god is the author of our nature/ That which we hold by faith as divinely revealed therefore cannot be contrary to reason/ whatever arguemnst r brought forward against the doctrine of faith r conclusions incorrectly derived from the first n self evident principles embedded in nature/ everything which comes from God must somehow reflect what Gd is becz effects always resembles their casues/ so we can speak of god by means of words..bt we need to be careful. William Ockham- against classical found reason cannot demonstrate that the first cause the one God/ God can cause us to believe something that is not there directly without mediation/ Fideism- existence of God can be arrived at by faith alone/ intuition as knowledge. Calvin- God has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty..men perceive that there is a God..bt natural noetic capacity is marred by sin/ he holds plantingas view/ not classical found nor fideism/ reason n faith not in conflict/ we can attain the fundamental truth by reason (gods existence)/ belief in god is properly basic. Augustine- senses gives us no serious knowledge. True knowledge derives from God, who illuminates our minds as the sun throws light/ God talk rasies problems for human understanding. All that we ascribe to God is God, which leads to conclude that God basically defies the logic of our language/ god is not the sort of thing that we can get our minds around/ we may say that God is good and wise but Gods goodness and wisdom cannot be thought of as distinguished / human language can perform reasonable job in describing God but onot fully coz of its limitations. Pseudo Dionysius- The languge we use to talk of things in the world must inevitably fail to capture what god is so we r forced into silence/ God transcends the limits siginifed by the words we use. He is beyond assertion bt also beyond denial. He is beyond assertion since he is the perfect and unique cause of all things. He is beyond denial by virtue of his preeminently simple n absolute nature. D. Z. Philips- the statmenet there is a god should not be evaluated as other sentences in the indicative mood. It is an expression of faith. Neither theology nor philosophy cannot impose meaningfulness on religion..philosphy cannot adequetly answer which religion is true..role of philosophy is to understand relation of religion n philosophy. It is sufficient to say that the criteria of intelligibility in religious matters are to be found within religion/ he rejected verificationist argument and said that religious language has significance. Norman Malcolm- religion is a form of life, it is a language embedded in action. Science is another. Neither stand in need of justification. John Locke- (Empiricism) the mind as a blank slate/ no innate knowledge. It come from outside sensory experience/ defined the boundry betwn religious faith n reason/ Xianity- the most reasonable religion. Certain matters of faith r above reason yet rationally believable. Bible teachings=reason/ defended natural theology attempt to ground belief abt God on purely rational reflection/ faith is assent to knowledge that is derived from revelation rather than reason. Immanuel Kant- Critique of pure reason/ idealism (combined rationalism and empiricism)/ knowledge is conditioned by the limits of our mind n therefore metaphysical knowledge via pure reason is impossible/ knowledge of God is not self evident. Metaphysical and theological knowledge involve hopeless contradictions. Pure reason is unable to give us any basis whatsoever for belief in freedom/ rejected cosmological, ontological, teleological arguments/ bt there is possibility of a rational basis for our metaphysical concerns in practical (ethical) reason. Xianity is a way of teaching of universal ethics for the philosophically unsophisticated. Jesus was moral teacher. Wittgenstein-language connects with the world bcz it consists of propositions which picture facts or state of affairs composed of objects. Language therefore is essentially empirical. When lngauge tries to go beyond picturing the world, it is nonsensical/ religious assertions are strictly nonsensical/ we can only pass over in silence. Clifford- Hermeneutics of suspicion/ it is wrong always everywhere n for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidences/ (Logical positivism or strong verify- meaningful statements fall into 2 categories: logically nessasary statements n thru himan senses. All religious belief is unreservedly unintelligible or straightforwardly lacking in sense). Kai Nelson- God talk is meaningless bcz statements abt God r not confirmable by sense experiences, whereas normal human understanding of God notions..ties them to empirical confirmation n refutation. Anthony Flew- all God talk dies a death by thousand qualification. Bcz a description about God (theological utterance) cancels itself out/ all knowledge involves true belief: not all true belief constitutes knowledge..atheism is justified/ if it is to be established that there is a god then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is so. Until and unless such grounds r produced we have no reason for believing. The only reasonable option is to be negative atheist or agnostic. So the onus of proof has to rest on theism. A. J. Ayer- there cannot be any transcendent truth of religion. For sentence such as god is a mistery expresses what r not literally significant..to say that God transcentds human understanding is to say that god is unintelligible..teh argument for religious experiences is fallacious..its interesting from the psychological view..the experience maybe cognitive..only science gives true knowledge/ no act of intuition can be said to revel a truth. Existentialism- Jean Paul Sartre world has no meaning n each person is alone n completely responsible for their action/ I do not believe in God; his existence has been disproved by science. Bt in the concentration camps..i have no need for good souls, an accomplice. David Hume- we cannot understand things beyond human affairs n therefore cannot carry our speculations into the two eternities; the existence n properties of spirit; the power n operations of one universal Spirit. God talk - such as Gods attributes of eternity, omnipotence, omniscience, immutability, infinity n incomprehensibility - is of what we cannot understand. Scholasticism- Faith n reason in harmony/ Aquinas. Faith improves reason/ Augustine, Calvin. Empiricism- reason thru sensory perception/ John Locke (faith has to accommodated when reason contradicts it). Faith n reason in conflict: abandon faith/ Anthony Flew, Clifford. Fideism: faith n reason in conflict- abandon reason/ Kierkegaard, terutlian, Ockham, Barth. (Kierkegaard- no matter how much we study abt god we cannot know the completeness of God. Cannot know the infinite characters of God. There is qualitative difference between god n human) Idealism- synthesis by Kant (how do we know what is truth?)/ you cannot know the substance of God. We cannot know a thing in itself -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cosmological Arg- Why is there something instead of nothing? The sheer existence of the world demands to give an account for its origin. Biblical- Gen 1;1, by faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things that are invisible Heb 11:3- In the beginning was the word n the word was with god n the word was god..all things were made through him, n without him to anything made that was visible Jn 1:1-3. Kalam- It gives us reason to believe that something freely brought the world about n that the world began to be/ God exists because the universe mst have had a beginning. God is the necessary cause of the universe. Whatever has a beginning of existence mst have a cause-the universe began to exist-the universe mst have been caused to exist. Avicenna- everything must have reason or cause of is existence-if something doesnt then there is one thing whch exsist of necessity-if something doesnt exist of necessity, its existence derives from a reason of cause - there cannot be an infinite series of reason for the existence of contingent being-so contigent being derives from what exists of necessity. William Graig- Kalams argument lead to personal god of universe bcz only free, intelligent choice can account for th univers. Thomas Reid- That neither existence nor any mode of existence can begin without an efficient cause, is a principle that..is so firmly rooted in human nature, that the most determined skepticism cannot eradicate it. E Ascombe- we know the times n place of their beginning without cavil bcz we understand their origin. To know something began to exist is aleady to know that it has been caused. Sufficient Reason- it holds that all contingent facts have an explanation. Leibniz- even by supposing the world to be eternal, we cannot escape the ultimate, extra mundane reason of God.. we must pass the physical nessisity..to something which is of absolute..no reason can be given. Thomas Aquinas- The First Cause the world must derive from somthin which is able to bring it into being, something not produced by anything, something which can be sensibly refered to as the necessary cause. Herbert McCabe- to prove the existence of God would be rather like proving the validity of science/ a belief in God validity of an ultimate, radical question to which God could be the only answer is a part of human flourishing n that one who closes off from it is to that extent deficient/ whatever creation is, it is not a process of making (its a statement against evoloution)/ What God accounts for is that the universe is there instead of nothing. Whatever God is, he is not a member of everything, not an inhabitant of the universe, not a thing/ a genuine atheist is one who simply doesnt see../God and creation belong together in a thought. Wittgenstein- Science tells us how the world is not mystical but what is mystical is the fact that the world is . David Hume- All ideas are distinct and separate from each other and so are their causes. So it is possible to imagine a beginning of existence without any cause, it follows that there can be a beginning of existence without any necessary cause. B. Russell- the universe is just there n thats all. Kai Nielsen- regression into infinite series but if the series were literally infinite there would be no need for there to be a first cause to get the causal order start ed..there would always be a causal order/ if each member in a series is supported by another member , the series will somehow be able to stand on its own. James Shadowsky refutes the argument of Nielson. Nothing can be supported in the case above, whatever the solution will turn out to be part of the problem. To deny the 1st cause argument is like saying no one may know anything without asking for permission -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Design Argument- From the fact that the world exist to the fact that it exhibits certain features. Which suggest mind or intelligence. World works in a wich suggest that its governed, planned or ordered, not by mind or intelligence within it, but by an author of cosmic manufacturer. Teleological argument- Goal or end or purpose. In NT Telos it is JC. The goal of creation is achieved in the person n thru the person of JC. All things have direction n destiny. In the world there is cycle of life. There is movement. It has pattern, purpose and design. In Cosmology the existence of world provokes a thought. Science can only tell us how the world works, bt it dsnt explain hw the world came into being. Gen 1:1- there is only 1 God, he created by himself and lowered himself to create us, created out of nothing. There is an order n division in genesis account. Division n order r basic for wisdom. Gen account favors teleological argument n much more than that. Providence it is to see the future n provide for it. It is concerned with Gods relationship with time n knowle dge. He provides because he is creator. By Aquinas. Thomas Aquinas- Four cause- material, formal, efficient, final/ Via antiqua- intelligent being is the only possible answer behind the order and harmony that exists in nature. Providence is a product of causality. Whoever denies final causality shoud also deny providences bcz it is concerned with the direction of all things to an end. But there is no providence in God with respect to himself, since whatever is in him is an end, not means to it (it means god is a perfect being. He is not dependent. He is self existing. God creates bcz its his nature to create, nature to love)/ Goal directed phenomena in nature..there is a being with intelligence who..and we call this being God Ockham- Casuality vs independence/ to multiply causes, without nessisity is indeed contrary to true philosophy William Paley- the universe resembles a watch and must therefore be accounted for in terms of intelligent n purposive agency God as watch maker/ Accidents are harder to account for than that of design/ there cannot be a design without designer. Plato- order in the material world is the work of a divine craftsman or demiurge, n that mind accounts for order n motion in the cosmos as a whole. Aristotle- A cause is an explanation/ four kinds of cause material, efficient, formal, final. Newton- scientific theories confirm that the world shows forth wisdom n power of a non mechanical deity. Robert Boyle- compares natural organisms with machines. Richard Swinburne- Regularities of succession are all persuasive. For simple laws govern almost all successions of events. In books of physics, chemistrt n biology we can learn how almost everyth in in the world behaves he concludes that some explanation is needed..the univers is explicable in terms of something analogous to human intelligence/ the very nature of secience cannot explain the highest level of laws of all Gods reason for producing an orderly world is bcz order is a necessary condition of beauty n its good that the world is beautiful than ugly (order is implicit in us n the nature. Chaos is harder to prove)/ for the activity of a god to account for the regularities, he must be free, rational n very powerful..gud reason to assume that his direct control thru scientific laws is not limited..the hypothesis that god is not embodied explains more and explains more coherently than the hypothesis that h e is embodied (a being who has created the univers should be greater than the creation. A physical being cannot create the world). Empedocles- it is by accident that te parts of animals came together. David Hume- what can be deduced from an effect must be proportioned to the cause. If design needs to be explained, then explain it. But whatever the design producing being maybe, it cannot be called God. To attribute that to God is to go beyond the evidence presented by design/ the assumption that there are human designers behind ships n cities does not necessarily infer that there is a human like designer behind the univers. The universe is unique/ even if there is an extra mundane designer, the argument still cn run into the problem of infinite regression/ the universe can be a product of chance/ the universe shows many signs of disorder (but disorder is not a dominant thing. After disorder comes order. Order is normative) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Works: Augustine: Metaphysics/ Credeutintelligas(believe so that you may understand), Mysticism and reason. God basically defies the logic of our language. Anselm of Canterbury- Proslogion, Cur Deus Homo: Credo utintelligram, Fides quaerensintellectum (Faith seeking understanding). Thomas Aquinas- Summa Contra/ Gentiles/ Imago Dei (image ofGod)/ AnalogiaEntis Rene Decartes- Discours on Method/ Meditations on First Philosophy. Spinoza- Tractus/ Theologico-Pliticus: God is identical with the law of nature John Locke- An essay Concerning Human/ Understanding the reasonableness of Christianity . David Hum- Treatise of Human Nature/ Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Kant- Critique of Pure Reason/ Critique of Practical Reason/ Critique of Judgment/ Groundwork of the metaphysic of Morals, Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone : Wittgenstein- Philosophical Investigation/ On Certainty, Lectures on Religious Belief : Clifford- Luminous Compulsive essay. Antony Flew- Onus of Proof. Paul Ricoeur- Rule of Metaphors and The Symbolism of Evil (second naivete). Aquinas- Via Antiqua(Classic): Providence as a product of casualty. William Paley- Natural Theology: Evidences of the Existence, Attribute of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature . -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Relationship between evidence n belief- Plantingas view- Gods existence is properly basic. Aquinas argument (in God talk). The world doesnt contain order. Explain a theist refutation- from Design argument Is a religious belief groundless? Arguemt of Aquinas and Plantinga(God Talk)

Faith and doubt- doubt n faith r not opposite. Doubt has a function in faith. OT ppl doubted. Moses and Habakuk doubted. We doubt bcz we dont see a big picture. It is becoz what we see doesnt match with what we know abt God. Habakuk saw injustice but he knew God as a god of justice. That is why he doubted. Doubt comes when there is a crisis in our understanding. Out of that doubt we can see a bigger pic of god. Doubt is the critiq of faith. But the core of our faith is not ideas (set of belifs) bt the person himself (God). Eph 2:8 faith is the gift of God. So faith is the starting point n doubt comes coz faith is something that had to be grown. Plantinga- He makes the existence of God as the starting point. He says to know something abt god is to knw something abt us. Knowledge of God n knowledge of man is interrelated. The knowledge is implied so therefore doesnt need a proof. Natural knowledge is theistic not atheistc (he says against Anthiny Flew). Among many things we belive to be true/reasonable the existence of God is also one. Belief of God is common in all culture.