Question about proving God Objectively/Subjectively

  • Thread starter Thread starter OrdinaryMelkite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

OrdinaryMelkite

Guest
I’ve reading a lot of philosophy/religious writings lately, and am curious to ask a question. Basically--------

There is the Objective way-------which I will label the “Thomas Aquinas Way,” per his famous “proof,”-------------

And then there is the Subjective way-----------which I will label the “Soren Kierkegaard Way,” per HIS writings----------

Which way (of the two) is the more convincing?

Or could it be a combination of the two?
If this is on the wrong forum, please move it).
 
The existence of God is a matter of Faith. Faith, as I’m sure you know, is a Theological virtue. The Theological virtues, hence the name, comes from God, as a gift. This gift of virtue, like all gifts, in order to receive it must not be rejected.

This is just a parsing out way of saying that you cannot convince someone of God’s existence, if that person refuses to believe in God.

Hardness of heart is a problem that only God can fix, so the best thing you can do is pray for that someone.

Now that’s not to say apologetics are worth nothing. Not so! The purpose of apologetics is to explain and make the Faith reasonable to a wide audience of nonbelievers and believers alike. They cannot force, say, a Hindu to become Catholic; but they can persuade the Hindu that the Faith is not totally abject, and it is in fact logical. The whole work of apologetics is only effective if the person’s heart is not totally hardened.

Now to answer your question (finally :p) I believe both ways are a liable form of proof. It really depends on your audience (though if I would be forced to pick one, I would go with Aquinas, for he is either one of the best Church fathers. Trust in what he says first.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top