Philosophy of God

So, what does this all mean for me? To be honest I am not really sure.

The components of this multi-faceted person can be broken down into several different categories. Barret would argue that there must be a place for the irrational along with the rational to counterbalance each other making a theory greater than the respective theories of either of the disjointed pair. Fourth, she is existential in that she, through despair, “nausea,” and absurdity she might come to a greater understanding of herself and God. Third, she is a rational being with the ability of introspection, making judgments and “having an interpretive world of language and of shared meanings” (Johnson 4). I am a young, middle class, white male living in the United States and I am Catholic. equate explanation of the human person and the things around us. One of the components of the human person had to do with having interpretive language and shared meanings, and since a human person cannot ask any question without relying on some sort of language which is essentially ambiguous and open divergent perceptions, “the answers to these questions are always going to be ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation” (Johnson 5). they think of how God’s existence is not necessarily a priori true, and hold that it is a posteriori false also, they however are still limiting themselves to only one aspect of reality, and however convincing their rationale might sound the theory can only be incomplete in the same way Descartes’ theory was. Further application of each of the parts of a human person is what these characteristics mean in respect to a greater power, namely God. Finally, she is free to choose as she might, as a morally responsible agent, the life she wishes and also to ask questions like “who am I?” or “How speak of God?”

All these components, although very different in nature and in some cases opposite, coexist in the essence of what humanity is. ” I have to say that I have thought about this issue many times and I still believe in God. For the most part, virtually all atheists (who carry the burden of disproving God’s existence) justify themselves by rational means (with the exception of Nietzsche who through an existential journey concluded Christ to have died on the cross), e. The alternative (what I am suggesting) is a combination of seemingly mutually exclusive theories, but the human personage is multi-faceted, and “the genuine heroism for man is still the power to support contradictions, no matter how glaring or hopeless they seem” (Becker 198).