La triple condición del dios unamuniano: entre la creencia cordial, la duda agónica y el ateísmo de Dios

Rethinking the Ontological Argument: a Neoclassical Theistic Response. By Daniel A. Dombrowski

Perfect Being Theism is the idea that God is the greatest metaphysically possible being. Most theists argue that God’s greatness entails that God must be ontologically distinct from the cosmos. Otherwise, God would be dependent in some respect, and so imperfect. This constitutes a formidable challenge to pantheism, the view that God is identical with the cosmos. If pantheism is inconsistent with Perfect Being Theism, then pantheists’ concept of God is deficient. I respond by arguing that Perfect Being Theism doesn’t entail God’s distinctness from the cosmos. I then argue that Perfect Being Theism is not a neutral methodological constraint on our theorizing about the divine nature. As a result, pantheists are entitled to develop an alternative conception of God’s perfection that is congenial to their view of the divine.

Although the concept of Heavenly Mother is empowering for many women, the focus on God as a cisgender, heterosexual couple also limits who can see their own divinity reflected in the stories told about God. First, with Heavenly Mother as the only female divinity, divine expression of womanhood is restricted to motherhood. This excludes many women, including women struggling with infertility, women who do not wish to become mothers, and transgender women who experience motherhood differently than fertile, cisgender women. Second, the focus on Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother's male-female relationship emphasizes heterosexuality to the point of heteronormativity. Third, the emphasis on gender and sex binaries in the Heavenly Mother/Heavenly Father pairing enshrines cisnormativity1 as divine and excludes identities that do not fit neatly into these binaries. Together, heteronormativity and cisnormativity exclude LGBTQ+ people2 from narratives of godhood. Both the exclusion of women and LGBTQ+ people are serious issues for a theology that claims to be broad and expansive enough to include all of God's diverse children. Some theologians tackle the first problem by adding additional female divinities (like Eve and Mary) to offer divine examples for multiple forms of womanhood, but this approach continues to enshrine cisnormativity. Others try to address the second and third problems by focusing on erasing differences between male and female, such as by creating a genderless god. Still, the creation of a genderless god erases gendered experiences, whether the gendered experiences are those of a transgender or cisgender individual. Claiming that a genderless god is inclusive is parallel to claiming that “colorblindness” solves racial issues. Refusing to acknowledge diversity doesn't mean it doesn't exist or impact people's lives; it simply excludes anything beyond the cultural default from conversation. Both approaches have value, but neither one can solve these issues on its own. Additional embodied female deities are not necessarily queer-inclusive, while a genderless god lacks the intimate understanding of menstruation, childbirth, miscarriage, and more that many women find comforting in an embodied Heavenly Mother. Inclusivity requires acknowledging and celebrating diversity. Whether a single god or a group of additional embodied deities, conceptions of God must be gender-inclusive or gender-encompassing in a theology that includes all God's diverse children.In an attempt to combine these two approaches, I follow religious scholar Caroline Kline's suggested approach of adding nuance to the Heavenly Father/Heavenly Mother pairing by “bringing forward and theologically developing other divine groupings and formations,”3 including a spectrum of genders and sexualities. Given the Mormon belief in apotheosis, there is space within our theology for an extended heavenly family that includes LGBTQ+ gods and a broader representation of womanhood. However, intellectual conversations about theological theories do not easily become part of lived religion. Theological storytelling translates abstract theological theories into concrete, easily visualized examples that can be internalized as beliefs. In order to make this theory accessible and to provide an example of how including LGBTQ+ gods might change our concept of godhood, I offer a short theological story reimagining a queer-inclusive extended heavenly family. Although they may not be the gods most Latter-day Saints are familiar with, these additional figures and groupings are part of our greater heavenly family. Understanding queer stories of godhood expands limited or narrow concepts of divinity to include all of humanity.To be clear, through theological storytelling I seek to find clarity regarding previous, imperfect, and exclusionary constructions of deity, not to create new doctrine from scratch. Teachings of Church leaders are filtered through their personal biases and historical context. Consequently, these teachings are not, and cannot be, objective. In that sense, all the truths that Mormonism claims to teach of God are constructed through and limited by human perception. The process of questioning and exploring alters the limits human biases place on understanding the nature of God, allowing perspectives to shift and uncover previously unseen truths.The doctrine of Heavenly Mother is rooted in the literal interpretations of scripture describing God as a Father and theistic anthropomorphism by leaders and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If we are children of God the Father, early Church members reasoned, then there must also be a God the Mother. Joseph Smith taught Zina Diantha Huntington Young4 and Eliza R. Snow that they had a Mother in Heaven.5 Other Church leaders have since also taught of the existence of Heavenly Mother, including in official documents such as the 1909 First Presidency statement6 and the 1995 “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”7Unlike the traditional Christian interpretation of gendered terminology relating to God as metaphorical, Mormons interpret gendered pronouns very literally. Brigham Young taught that all humans were “created . . . in the image of our father and our mother, the image of our God” and indicated that this was consistent with the biblical account of both “male and female” being made in the image of God.8 Thus, Adam was created in the image of Heavenly Father; Eve was created in the image of Heavenly Mother. Additionally, both heavenly parents have “[bodies] of flesh and bone as tangible as man's.”9 According to Mormon understanding, this means that “God the Father is a male with a male's body and God the Mother is a female with a female body.”10 Because “all men and women are in the similitude of” gendered and embodied heavenly parents, Church leaders assume that human bodies are similarly gendered in a binary manner.11Although some Church leaders consider “God” to include both heavenly parents, in practice the word “God” is often understood to refer to God the Father and is accompanied by masculine pronouns.12 For example, the four 2020 general conference talks that mentioned heavenly parents only used that phrase once while using “God,” “Lord,” or “Heavenly Father,” and masculine pronouns throughout the rest of the talk.13 More often, Heavenly Mother is not named but is implicitly included in a conversation focused on God the Father with the phrase “heavenly parents.”14Whether explicitly included in conversations about God or included in the term “heavenly parents,” the focus tends to be on Heavenly Mother's roles as wife or mother, how Heavenly Mother is the ideal every woman should strive to become, and how Heavenly Mother can be used to enforce complementary gender roles.Heavenly Mother is the wife of Heavenly Father and nurturing mother of all humanity. President Boyd K. Packer taught that before birth, each human “lived in a premortal existence as individual spirit children of heavenly parents” and suggested that “in the development of our characters our Heavenly Mother was perhaps particularly nurturing.”15 Similarly, Susa Young Gates taught that “our great heavenly Mother was the greater molder” of Abraham and that she has played similarly nurturing roles since, providing “careful training” and “watchful care” to every human.16 President Spencer W. Kimball taught that Heavenly Mother is “the ultimate in maternal modesty,” then asked, “knowing how profoundly our mortal mothers have shaped us here, do we suppose her influence on us as individuals to be less”?17Heavenly Mother is the “eternal prototype” of womanhood, the ideal that every Mormon woman is expected to become.18 President Russell M. Nelson taught that “as begotten children of heavenly parents” humans are “endowed with the potential to become like them, just as mortal children may become like their mortal parents.”19 Women are taught that they specifically have the potential to develop the traits and attributes of Heavenly Mother. For example, Vaughn J. Featherstone explained that “women are endowed with special traits and attributes that come trailing down through eternity from a divine mother. Young women have special God-given feelings about charity, love, and obedience.”20 Similarly, Glenn L. Pace told women that when they stood before Heavenly Mother they would “see standing directly in front of you your divine nature and destiny.”21 Note that these teachings also exclude men and nonbinary people from being nurturing or inheriting attributes from Heavenly Mother.Church leaders have also repeatedly taught that Heavenly Mother's gendered roles and attributes are complementary to Heavenly Father's and that humans are expected to perform similarly complementary gender roles. According to several Church leaders, neither Heavenly Father nor Heavenly Mother could be complete or could become a god on their own.22 The 1916 First Presidency declaration “The Father and Son” taught that it was only together that heavenly parents could have children or attain exaltation.23 Similarly, Richard G. Scott taught, “In the Lord's plan, it takes two—a man and a woman—to form a whole.” Whether Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father or a mortal couple, “husband and wife are not two identical halves, but a wondrous, divinely determined combination of complementary capacities and characteristics.”24 Just as Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother could not become gods alone, human males “may never hope to reach the high destiny marked out for him by the Savior in these encouraging words: ‘Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect,’ without woman by his side; for ‘neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.’”25 According to David A. Bednar, the complementary gendered roles and responsibilities “of both males and females were needed to implement the plan of happiness. Alone, neither the man nor the woman could fulfill the purposes of his or her creation.”26 Performing separate and complementary gender roles is seen as a way for humans to imitate Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father.There exist three major weaknesses in the current theological conception of Heavenly Mother. First, Heavenly Mother, a singular being representing the potential of all her daughters, reinforces stereotypes of motherhood as the only path to divine womanhood. Second, focusing on Heavenly Mother in the context of her marital relationship with Heavenly Father enforces binaries that exclude non-heterosexual relationships from potential godhood. Third, because narratives about Heavenly Mother's and Heavenly Father's gendered embodiment promotes cisnormativity, transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals are excluded from potential godhood.In Heavenly Mother, women are given one example of female divinity. The writings and speeches of official Church leaders portray Heavenly Mother as a pedestalized, silent, childbearing partner to Heavenly Father and nurturing mother to all humanity. This framework has troubling implications for women who do not wish to or cannot have children. As Blaire Ostler observes, “The inherent nature of Heavenly Mother implies all women would desire eternal motherhood. In this sense, motherhood becomes the gatekeeper of a woman's godly potential.”27 Because narratives about Heavenly Mother equate motherhood with womanhood and female godhood, the only avenue toward divinity for women is through motherhood. In contrast, men have God the Father and Jesus, giving them two examples of male divinity, Father and Son. But women have only Heavenly Mother, a God described and named in terms of motherhood. Within this theological conception of womanhood, women who are not mothers are excluded from seeing themselves in God.Pairing Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father as a husband and wife who could only become gods as a couple suggests that heterosexuality is essential to godhood. This view of heterosexuality is based on 1 Corinthians 11:11, which states “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord,” and teachings of Church authorities. Extrapolating from his belief that God is Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother together, Erastus Snow taught, “There can be no God except he is composed of the man and woman united, and there is not in all the eternities that exist, or ever will be a God in any other way. We may never hope to attain unto the eternal power and the Godhead upon any other principle . . . [than] this Godhead composing two parts, male and female.”28 This teaching was later affirmed by other Church authorities, including Hugh B. Brown, James E. Talmage, Melvin J. Ballard, and Bruce R. McConkie.29 If Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother became gods in part through a heterosexual relationship, can non-heterosexual individuals also become gods? Because focusing on Heavenly Mother in the context of a male-female partnership shifts narratives about God from that of an individual to that of a heterosexual couple, this narrative enforces beliefs that heterosexuality is a prerequisite of godhood. Consequently, Heavenly Mother's heterosexual relationship is used to exclude non-heterosexual individuals and couples from potential godhood.The narrative of Heavenly Mother's and Heavenly Father's gendered embodiment is used to promote cisnormativity through a process called “cisgendering reality.” This cisgendering of reality, in turn, excludes non-cisgender individuals from potential godhood. The term “cisgendering reality” is defined as “the process whereby religious leaders and members socially construct and maintain cisnormative interpretations of the world through their ongoing teachings, rituals, and other faith-related activities,” such as by erasing, marking, or punishing transgender existence.30 Most contemporary religious cosmologies and theologies, including Mormonism, are “devoid of and ignore transgender existence. Rather than describing our world, they breathe life into an imagined world entirely composed of cisgender people” even though transgender people exist in Mormonism and have existed throughout human history.31 They are similarly devoid of nonbinary, intersex, and gender-fluid individuals. By ignoring gender variance to create and enforce a binary male/female view of God and God's children, religious narratives cisgender reality and “provide the symbolic material necessary” to judge “what is and is not acceptable to God.”32Cisgendering reality within Mormonism is specifically associated with narratives asserting that only male and female beings exist, that God created men and women to occupy distinctly separate and complementary roles and responsibilities, and that any empirical realities that do not match these storylines should be rejected. The Church teaches that, as the literal, embodied spirit children of gendered and embodied heavenly parents, humanity consists of people who are either a “male with a male body” or a “female with a female body.” But this ignores the existence and experiences of intersex, nonbinary, gender-fluid, and transgender individuals throughout history. If all humans are made in the image of God, that includes intersex, nonbinary, gender-fluid, and transgender humans. Individuals are also expected to perform complementary gender roles based on their gender as assigned at birth—women are expected to become mothers (like Heavenly Mother) while men are expected to “preside, provide [for], and protect” their family.33 When Heavenly Mother is added to discussions of Heavenly Father in order to “emphasize male and female distinctions without any mention of other potentially moral options and define gender variance of any kind as an assault on the sanctity of God's plans,” the result is the cisgendering of reality through the rejection of the empirical evidence and the lived experiences of gender-nonconforming individuals.34 As philosophy professor Kelli D. Potter points out, the “idea of a natural or inherent binary sexual difference in LDS discourse makes a legible ‘sex’ the prerequisite to personhood,” meaning that non-cisgender individuals are “illegible as children of God [with] divine potentials.”35 Using Heavenly Mother's embodiment to cisgender reality withholds the potential of godhood from transgender, nonbinary, intersex, and gender-fluid individuals.Mary Daly, a feminist philosopher and theologian, once said, “If God is male, then male is God.”36 I would argue that it is also true that if God is heterosexual, then heterosexual is God, and if God is cisgender, then cisgender is God. The current conception of the feminine divine as a single being who is revered in the context of her relationships as part of a cisgender, heterosexual couple excludes the LGBTQ+ community from godhood unless they eternally perform a cisgender, heterosexual relationship.Many Mormon studies scholars and theologians have sought to address these three major weaknesses in the current theological conception of Heavenly Mother. Their approaches include exploring non-biological reproduction and multiplicity of passageways, reintroducing kinship sealings, and adding additional female divine beings to our doctrinal pantheon. Scholars outside of Mormonism have also developed theology that expands godhood by feminizing the Holy Spirit or queering the Godhead.Taylor Petrey criticizes feminist theological writings about Heavenly Mother in “Rethinking Mormonism's Heavenly Mother” because they promote gender essentialism, reduce all women to one female god, reinforce binaries, and idealize heterosexuality.37 Petrey argues that expanding the pantheon of female deities cannot solve the problems he outlined because additional female figures only continue to reinforce gender binaries. Instead, he suggests multiplicity to create passageways between male and female in order to expand the concept of God beyond binaries and examines the gender transgressiveness of Jesus.38 While I agree with Petrey that the concept of God should extend beyond binaries, I also recognize that some women benefit from worshipping a God who intimately understands biological processes like menstruation, miscarriage, pregnancy, and menopause. Embodied representation of diverse identities and experiences is essential to developing an inclusive theology.In response to Taylor Petrey's article, religious studies professor Caroline Kline observes, “How deity is constructed has implications for our own eternal futures. If God is a married heterosexual couple, then how can we create theological space for LGBTQ people in heaven? How can we find theological room for LGBTQ people to form eternal partnerships with those of their choice and act as partnered Gods to enable new generations of humans to grow and progress and reach their eternal destinies?”39 I would add, if God is cisgender, how can we create theological space for transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people in heaven? How can we embrace their existence and celebrate it as sacred and divine? Noting the importance of an embodied female God to many women, Kline suggests that perhaps future theological work will “retain Heavenly Mother as equal to Heavenly Father, but nuance this male/female pairing by bringing forward and theologically developing other divine groupings and scholars have other feminine groupings or However, these additional female deities reinforce traditional beliefs about gender and that exclude the LGBTQ+ community from godhood unless they perform cisgender expand the Mormon concept of female divinity beyond Heavenly Mother, has suggested a female of Mother, and Holy as as a of female divine figures including the and Other including have also the Holy as Although these theological writings do not divinity to a heterosexual couple, they explicitly expand the concept of God to include queer individuals or additional female divinities are either (like and the Holy or are based on biblical characters like Eve and because of the ongoing cisgendering of reality, they are to be cisgender, meaning that they do not make divinity more inclusive for nonbinary, intersex, transgender, and gender-fluid individuals. In order to be queer-inclusive, additional embodied deities must be explicitly non-cisgender or outside of Mormon studies have expanding divinity through queering the For example, and of Jesus as a In Christ as a a transgender and as a and him from the Jesus In the story of a transgender Jesus who is in relationships with both the and and also the as a of these and expands divinity to include in there is space within Mormon and theology to include Mormon teachings about gender and have than teachings about gender include that each individual their gender before birth, that gender would be and that each gender was assigned by According to contemporary teachings, gender is essential of individual and eternal and gender as gender to refer to biological gender or gender expression throughout Church The meaning of the nature of gender is similarly According to Blaire not mean or means or perhaps and to exist in Mormon theology is to be in a of change or Some might even it eternal Thus, the teaching that gender is eternal not mean that gender is Kelli D. Potter similarly argues that “the Mormon emphasis on divine and human embodiment can be for nonbinary transgender individuals because male and female is a of and sex and gender can be to change to the nature of Given the multiple of both and within Mormon it is to gender as both nonbinary and teachings about relationships and have including then the of sex to then expanding it to include and of sexual were acceptable in and a for the of As Kelli D. Potter Mormons are not by their theology to and they are their theology to queer and Thus, though queer people and relationships may not be explicitly the historical of teachings about gender and room for in Mormon future shift the Church could make to be more inclusive is who and relationships can be in the In Blaire Ostler a way to include or not, cisgender or not, or godhood through a of queer on her of early and Joseph to married women, Ostler argues that could be for relationships of or This of queer can include for an of and Ostler points out that “the family is more than just one and is and the generations of who before you or is not just a cisgender, heterosexual I see no our heavenly family would not be just as expansive and a Mormon Taylor Petrey points out our theology may have space for the queer including in the of reproduction to biological the historical practice of as and the of eternal According to Mormon discourse between and sexual the but the As a relationships are excluded as a of Mormon LGBTQ+ heterosexuality is within Mormonism as an eternal male-female relationship, Petrey in terms of relationships than only and to and heterosexual relationships equal Petrey suggests the that relationships may be the of as heterosexual Kline and I not to Heavenly Mother because I see in an embodied female God who is an equal partner to a male God. as a queer woman, I also see the for a more theology that beyond the additional female divine figures Thus, I follow Kline's to theologically develop other divine groupings and while focusing on relationships like I follow example to a family based on relationships of or relationships that are not limited to only cisgender, heterosexual gender and are of an makes them who they their of or If queer people were to be from their queer to we would no be I the that gender is an essential of an eternal existence and assume that is similarly I the gender binary and . . . that being male and female is a of with being in a way to biological Thus, in this of godhood, I assume that gender and both exist on and that an gender and may be than theological for a inclusive heavenly family is apotheosis, or the that an individual can become a god. has taught by multiple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day with Joseph Smith and on with leaders, though it is described as Smith taught on several that as literal children of God each human has the potential to godhood. In Joseph Smith and a the including that those who are on become even the of God” in the Joseph Smith taught more about in a as the that explained his beliefs on the nature of God and on to become God, Smith said, once was a man like one of us and that God the Father of us once on an the as Jesus Christ in the flesh and like in the Smith the have to how to make Gods in order to and be and to God, the as all Gods have from a to a great from a to from to the of the from to Thus, to Joseph our God was once a mortal on an like we are and our God is one of many gods who have lived mortal as part of their eternal Mormon have also taught Snow the man God once as God man may Joseph Smith more explicitly described the of the extended heavenly family in God's father through a of even as he through and as we all are Father in to the had a Father, and since there has a of this kind through all each Father had a Heavenly Father has a a a and each of a mortal to godhood. our Heavenly Mother also has family members and who their own mortal before Church leaders about in terms of and ongoing to a future in which humans have become like God and as God A part of the of

Karo people believe in the existence of Dibata Kaci-kaci (“God”). The understanding and belief about Dibata is obtained through life experiences, natural phenomena, and events experienced. The orientation of this research is to find the transformation of belief in Dibata as the concept of God for Karo Catholics. The research method used is qualitative, with interview techniques based on experiences derived from oral traditions, group discussion forums, and documentation. Research informants: five traditional leaders, two Karo culturalists, two priests, and five pastoral councils of parishes and stations. This research uses Rudolf Otto's (1917) theory of religious phenomenology to understand the experience and understanding of the sacred or numinous. This theory helps explain how Karo people experience and understand God's presence through natural phenomena and life events. The findings of this study are in line with previous research by Singarimbun (1975) and Ginting (2018), which also examined the concept of God in Karo beliefs. However, this study provides a new perspective by exploring the transformation of the concept in the context of Karo Catholics. The novelty of this research lies in finding the intersection between the experience and understanding of God in the beliefs of the Karo people and the concept of the Trinity in the teachings of the Catholic Church. The results show that the Karo people recognize, acknowledge, and believe in the existence of a God who is both transcendent and immanent, namely Dibata Datas (God Above), Dibata Tengah (God Middle), and Dibata Teruh (God Below). The experience and understanding of God in the Karo people's beliefs find common ground, thus becoming an opportunity for evangelization. The concept of the Karo God as a God with three persons (Dibata si Telu Sada) reveals the Karo belief that Dibata is present in all realities: the upper world, the middle world, and the lower world. For example, Karo: Mula jadi (creator, origin), Dibata Kaci kaci (loving God), Nini (grandfather). This finding is a new idea that can be used as catechetical material about the Trinity that the Catholic Church believes in.

There is renewed interest in philosophical and theological investigations about God, religions and the implications of religious beliefs among philosophers and theologians in Africa. This development is itself profitable because the question or the problem of God is a relevant discourse in Africa where the majority of people are theists. However, unlike the exploration of the first-generation African scholars—philosophers and theologians—whose primary objective was to show the symmetry between Christianity and African Traditional Religions (ATR), contemporary discourses arise within the clamour for decoloniality. The investigations, with varied emphasis, advocate the decolonisation of the concept of God, epistemic decolonisation, decolonisation of Christianity and African Christian theology, etc. In this essay, I critically examine the contemporary decolonial discourse about God, divine attributes, religious belief, and the relationship between African Christian theology and ATR. I argue that most of the contemporary literature is entangled in conceptual convolution and as such, there is a lack of clarity about what needs to be decolonised. Put differently, most works do not clearly distinguish between reality (the person or phenomenon “God”), thought (the concept “God”), and conceptions of God (language, that is, the terms and images used in making assertions about God). Further, I argue that when conceptual clarifications are adequately attended to, there is no need for decolonisation of discourses about God, divine nature, divine attributes, and the relationship between Christianity and ATR.

Children at elementary schools have been able to develop their logical thinking and the ability to understand symbols and fundamental principles, yet still in a concrete fashion. Religion, however, introduces the concept of God, which is quite an abstract concept. Therefore, a learning method that can help children to develop their understanding of God is required. This research aimed to identify the conception of God on children enrolled in Integrated Islamic schools (SIT). The study used qualitative method with the indigenous psychology approach. The study collected data from 200 students at Grade Six from Integrated Islamic elementary schools in Pekanbaru. The data was processed using thematic analysis based on the conception of God in Islamic tradition. The results showed that the majority of the respondents (97.73%) described their conception of God with their understanding of God as the Creator ( tawhid al-rububiyya) involving the perfection of God, the willfulness of God, and the existence of God. The implementation of the understanding of God in daily life ( tawhid al-uluhiyya) is then applied through prayers, compliance to religious rules, and submission toward God’s commands. These results suggest that respondents comprehend the concept of God and implement such understanding through their daily activities

The existence of God and religion has always been a debate throughout the history of mankind giving birth to various different views, one of which is Agnostic. The existence of agnostics in Indonesia is a phenomenon that is quite unique to trace even though the number of agnostics cannot be ascertained, because every Indonesian citizen is required to embrace one of the six official religions. Therefore, the urgency to understand the concept of Godhood from an Agnostic perspective is very important. This research aims to analyze and explain the concept of agnostic divinity according to STIBA Ar Raayah Sukabumi students, understand how the attitude and implications of STIBA Ar Raayah Sukabumi students towards the concept of agnostic divinity by applying a qualitative approach and descriptive methods. Data were collected using questionnaire techniques and in-depth interviews. The results of the study showed that the respondents' understanding of the concept of Agnostic divinity was quite good, this was evidenced by their answers, the majority of which were in accordance with the definitions of experts. The attitude of the respondents towards the concept of Agnostic divinity is that the majority of respondents are negative about the concept of Agnostic divinity so that it has a positive impact on the spiritual power that they believe that God exists and must be worshipped. Meanwhile, the implications of the concept of Agnostic divinity in the lives of respondents have a great impact on their increasing steadfastness and belief that encourages them to carry out the obligations of a Muslim every day.

God is the absolute truth and substance of all things, the universal in which everything subsists. As such God is also absolute subjectivity, or spirit. The concrete development of this idea of God yields the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. But Hegel first reflects on the concept of God in a more abstract philosophical sense, where he is at pains to distinguish an authentic panentheism (all things have their being in God) from a spurious pantheism (everything is God). The analysis then shifts from the being to the knowledge of God, of which, according to Hegel, there are four basic forms: immediate knowledge (faith), feeling, representation (Vorstellung), and thought. Each is valid, but each is also superseded by the next form. Thinking about God appears in the various religions as proofs of the existence of God (cosmological, teleological, ontological). If knowledge of God is the theoretical form of the religious relationship, the worship of God is the practical form—indeed the form in which the relationship is consummated by the participation of the believer in God through cultic acts such as devotion, sacrifice, and sacraments.

This chapter discusses Jewish philosophical arguments against the Christian doctrine of Trinity. Though not all Christians with whom the Jews were familiar agreed on all the detail of the Trinitarian doctrine, most followed the formulation of the Quicumque (Athanasian) Creed. A number of concepts are presented in this formulation of faith. First, there is only one God, who is one substance or divine nature. Second, this one God has three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Third, the Father was not begotten, the Son was generated from the Father, and the Spirit proceeded from the Father and Son. Fourth, all three Persons are coequal and coeternal. The Jewish polemicists disagreed with the division of God into three Persons and with the assumption that the three Persons were apparently causally connected. The Jews rejected this Christian concept of a triune God as being incompatible with the principles of God's unity, which even the Christians claimed they maintained. The chapter then details the four major categories of Jewish philosophical arguments against the Trinity: (1) Trinity implies matter; (2) the divine attributes are not Persons; (3) generation disproves unity; (4) syllogistic logic refutes the Trinity. It also considers (5) images of the Trinity.

In response to arguments against the existence of God, and in response to perceived conflicts between divine attributes, theists often face pressure to give up some pretheoretically attractive thesis about the divine attributes. One wonders: when does this unacceptably water down our concept of God, and when is it, as van Inwagen says, ‘permissible tinkering’ with the concept of God? A natural and widely deployed answer is that it is permissible tinkering iff it is does not violate the claim that God is the greatest possible being. Call this the ’perfect being defense.’ In this paper I lay out some influential uses of the perfect being defense, and then argue that this strategy for defending theism fails.

This article aims to elaborate the thoughts of al Attas and Thomas F Wall in understanding of God; both of which agree to consider God as a central concept ( core belief ) in the structure of their theory of worldview. Even so, their concept of God cannot be said to be the same, where al Attas accepts religious institutions (read; Islam) and Wall although apreciated God but rejected religion (agnostic). As a result, both worldviews have different spectrums in the all concepts included concept of reality, human beings and science; where these are rooted in the concept of God. Al Attas and Wall are contemporary philosophers who are concerned in the field of worldview theory, where al Attas presents the Islamic worldview and the Wall as a representation of the Western worldview. This article is a library research using a comparative analysis of the thoughts of two figures; besides that, contain analysis is also needed to interpret what is written in the works of the two scholars. The conclusion of this article is that al Attas' concept of God is based on revelation ( khabar sadiq ), while Wall builds the concept of God rationally. Al Attas came to the conclusion that God is One; all His perfect attributes exist conclusively, while Wall doubts the existence of God, so Wall attempted to undestand God metaphorically (God as myth).

Faith within Reason. By Herbert McCabe, edited by Brian Davies

In the continuing dialogue between Western philosophy and the Christian religion, the central issue has generally been the existence of God. There has however been a discernible shift in the focus of the discussion in recent years. Rather than the existence of God, the issue now seems to be the concept of God. It is increasingly argued by philosophers critical of religion that the concept of God is basically incoherent, and that therefore the question of God's existence or non-existence does not even arise. What cannot be conceived is not even a possible object of faith.

The Analysis of the Relationship between God, Religion and Politics in Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan and De Cive

4 - What Is God?