<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE ArticleSet PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD PubMed 2.7//EN" "https://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/pubmed/in/PubMed.dtd">
<ArticleSet>
<Article>
<Journal>
				<PublisherName>University of Tehran Press</PublisherName>
				<JournalTitle>Philosophy of Religion</JournalTitle>
				<Issn>2008-7063</Issn>
				<Volume>19</Volume>
				<Issue>1</Issue>
				<PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
					<Year>2022</Year>
					<Month>03</Month>
					<Day>21</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>Criticism of Michael Martin’s Proposition of Self-Contradiction of God to Rationalize Atheism</ArticleTitle>
<VernacularTitle>Criticism of Michael Martin’s Proposition of Self-Contradiction of God to Rationalize Atheism</VernacularTitle>
			<FirstPage>1</FirstPage>
			<LastPage>26</LastPage>
			<ELocationID EIdType="pii">87430</ELocationID>
			
<ELocationID EIdType="doi">10.22059/jpht.2022.333311.1005861</ELocationID>
			
			<Language>FA</Language>
<AuthorList>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Hassan</FirstName>
					<LastName>Qarehbaghi</LastName>
<Affiliation>PhD Student, Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute, Qom, Iran</Affiliation>

</Author>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Ruhollah</FirstName>
					<LastName>Nazari</LastName>
<Affiliation>MSc. Holder, Allameh Tabataba&amp;#039;i University, Tehran, Iran</Affiliation>

</Author>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Mohammad</FirstName>
					<LastName>Jafari</LastName>
<Affiliation>Associate Professor, Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute, Qom, Iran</Affiliation>

</Author>
</AuthorList>
				<PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
			<History>
				<PubDate PubStatus="received">
					<Year>2021</Year>
					<Month>11</Month>
					<Day>01</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</History>
		<Abstract>Theism and atheism, the two opposing sides over the course of human history, are responses to the origin of universe and existence. Copious discussions have been made about their discourse, arguments, evidences, and requirements. One of the criticisms of atheists against theists is that the existence of God and His acceptance through the attributes expressed by religions is a self-contradictory issue that will not be accepted if it is perceived correctly. Michael Martin, the contemporary philosopher and atheist, takes attributes such as absolute Knower or absolute Goodness as the reason for the contradiction and denial of the existence of God, and has tried to rationalize atheism this way. Adopting a descriptive-analytical research method, this paper aims to critically examine Martin’s view in this regard and show the weaknesses of limiting the world of being to matter and materiality and likening God to human in the acquisition of knowledge, as God’s presential knowledge (which is the highest level of knowledge) makes Him needless to the human types of knowledge. Martin’s mistake lies in his human-like view to God and his lack of true understanding of the absolute Knower; that is, he should have not addressed the divine knowledge based on a non-philosophical classification of knowledge.</Abstract>
			<OtherAbstract Language="FA">Theism and atheism, the two opposing sides over the course of human history, are responses to the origin of universe and existence. Copious discussions have been made about their discourse, arguments, evidences, and requirements. One of the criticisms of atheists against theists is that the existence of God and His acceptance through the attributes expressed by religions is a self-contradictory issue that will not be accepted if it is perceived correctly. Michael Martin, the contemporary philosopher and atheist, takes attributes such as absolute Knower or absolute Goodness as the reason for the contradiction and denial of the existence of God, and has tried to rationalize atheism this way. Adopting a descriptive-analytical research method, this paper aims to critically examine Martin’s view in this regard and show the weaknesses of limiting the world of being to matter and materiality and likening God to human in the acquisition of knowledge, as God’s presential knowledge (which is the highest level of knowledge) makes Him needless to the human types of knowledge. Martin’s mistake lies in his human-like view to God and his lack of true understanding of the absolute Knower; that is, he should have not addressed the divine knowledge based on a non-philosophical classification of knowledge.</OtherAbstract>
		<ObjectList>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Atheism</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">philosophical atheism</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Michael Martin</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">self-contradictory</Param>
			</Object>
		</ObjectList>
<ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf">https://jpht.ut.ac.ir/article_87430_bf26b600c71e318873130c6615a24e93.pdf</ArchiveCopySource>
</Article>
</ArticleSet>
