Philosophy of Religion
God’s Necessary Existence Respons John Hick’s begins his paper, “ God’s Necessary Existence” by stating that God cannot be understood in a logically necessary way but, an ontological or factual necessity. Hick’s believes that the statement, “ God does not exist,” is a self-contradiction a statement of such a kind that is logically impossible.”(Peterson, 2014, p.234) Due, to the understanding of the word God, it is just for their beliefs, there is not a being that upholds this standard of definition. The characteristics that define God, Hick believes can only be understood by undying faith which is that, God is superior to us, uncomparable, existing necessarily, and that we will never be able to begin to understand…show more content… superioristic, all encompassing, and powerful God, it's not the God that Hick fathoms to be. Hick’s is completely misguided by human influences and is simpleminded to the very existence of God lacking substantial errors in his argument. First, let’s begin by Hick’s notion that, “within the thought-world of modern empiricism the notion of logically necessary existence is not admissible and cannot be employed as the foundation of a valid theistic argument.” (Peterson, 2014, p.234) Empiricism is the way scientists derive answers from experiences used through senses and evidence that can be collected and documented. This method of investigation has served the human population immensely through scientific advancements of advancements such as cars, the light bulb, computers, and cell phones. When humans are faced with difficult decisions in life we use the scientific method by making or not making decisions based on the outcomes presented to us. The use of empiricism evidence, our senses is really the only way we are capable to have consciousness. If we could not see, smell, hear, touch, and taste what would we be? Without the ability to process the senses, this discussion wouldn't have even…show more content… "An adequate object of religious attitudes must be conceived as being infinitely superior to ourselves in value or worth..refers to this object as "he" rather than it." (Peterson, 2014, p.235)This characteristic he placed upon his God requires he must be substantially more pure than humans but, that question itself is an error. For, we are placing human characteristics upon a being that is not human. If, there is really such a "higher" being, characteristics as using the gender term male already show cultural and social ideals embedded into the very basics of their proclaimed God. If this God is superior, and is identified as male, it signals a religion steaming from a patriarchy which commonly sees a woman below a man. Hick’s characteristics are not a reflect of a real God but, human traits that are completely different. It’s as if to say, that a two fish could express the same love that two humans have for each