Meister Eckhart is one of the Christian Mystics that Christian Orthodoxy and Catholic Church accused his thoughts in Medieval Ages and named him heretic. Most important themes that disparate the Theism of Eckhart from his Christian predecessors are belief to Godhead beyond God, Denial of possibility of Knowing God, Innovations about Trinity, belief to apophatic Theology and etc. He defended of his beliefs against this charges, but because of his interior tendency, the Theism of Eckhart is result of apophatic Theology of Dionysius and Neoplatonism and without Denial of Trinity; while accepting its function and essence in his preachers; regards Unity superior specialty of Godhead above existence and nothing.

One of the most important and challenging theories of Open Theism is its particular view of the attribute of divine omniscience. This theory acknowledges that God is the Absolute, yet stipulates that God's knowledge does not include what man performs with his free will in the future. The acceptance of absolute authority for man and the embracing of the contradiction between the "freely chosen actions of man in the future" and the "foreknowledge of God" have led the Open Theism to deny the foreknowledge of God in these acts. At the same time, they argue that the lack of “ a priori knowledge of God” in these kinds of actions does not undermine his absolute knowledge. Advocates of open Theism, proving their own viewpoints by referring to all kinds of views on God's knowledge and expressing the deficiencies in these theories, maintain that this view is more acceptable logically and philosophically, and due to its compatibility with the Holy Bible. While mentioning the shortcomings of three other contending perspectives in this regard namely "simple knowledge", "middle knowledge" and "Augustinian-Calvinist view ", they consolidate their views and establish their own theory.

In this article the rationality of Theism is studied in three important works of Plantinga; the three works in which the author, while responding to the critiques, presents his viewpoints. In this article, Plantinga's line of argumentation in these books is sought and then, his views are explained and analyzed. Hence, first his analogical argument is studied and criticized and then it will be discussed that there is incoherence in his critiques of the evidentialism and foundationalism. At the end, it will be also mentioned that his idea that the belief in God needs no evidence is a kind of Fideism.

Skeptical Theism is a type of reply to arguments from evil against God’ s existence. The skeptical theist declines to accept a premise of some such argument, professing ignorance, for example, about whether God is justified in permitting certain evils or about the conditional probability that the world contains as much evil as it does, or evils of a particular sort, on the hypothesis that God exists. Skeptical theists are thus not supposed to be skeptical about Theism; rather, they are theists who are skeptical about something else. But that raises the question of exactly what else. In particular, does skepticism with respect to some claims about God and evil lead to a more pervasive skepticism? More precisely, is skeptical Theism committed to additional skepticism about God? Is skeptical Theism committed to global skepticism, including skepticism about ordinary, commonplace beliefs? Or is skeptical Theism at the very least committed to a broader skepticism about matters of morality? This paper takes up these questions.

In purifying attitude of Muslim mystics, real God is superior and higher than other creatures and their attributes, and instinctively He is distinct from the whole creatures. Despite the love and affection bond that Sufis believe exists between man and God, the governing aspect in mystical Theism is basically set on the purified nature of the Almighty. In mystical Theism of Mowlana Jalaloddin Balkhi, no one can have access to the actual core of God, and that the nature of God is not at all recognizable through the human wisdom and understanding. In Rumi's opinion, the core of God's nature is covered in "absolute unknown", and human understanding helped by analogy and illusion or contemplation leads nowhere. However, Rumi poses two different attitudes, namely pro-catharsis and proanalogy. In pro-catharsis attitude, he believes that human wisdom is unable to recognize the nature and attributes of God, whereas, in prophetic missionanalogous one, he believes that God reveals his own entity to mankind through His signs and effects. In his opinion, human being is able to see a ray of the Almighty light as much as possible, only through the emergence of God's revelation of signs. And in any case, the real nature of divine attributes of God is concealed to everyone but the Almighty Himself.

This paper investigates the question, "What is the model of a successful argument in natural theology?" The three criteria of persuasion, acceptance of premises, and cumulative case, which have been proposed to justify or reject Theism, are analyzed using an analytical-critical method. The result shows that none of these criteria, due to their limitations, are individually adequate for a successful argument. The main idea of the paper is to view religious beliefs as the result of a logical-epistemological process and to consider various factors for the success of religious arguments. Therefore, instead of adhering to a specific criterion, one should regard the criterion as a "process." This concept brings our attention to several important points: Firstly, choosing a single criterion for all arguments or measuring and classifying different arguments based on a common criterion is difficult and challenging because there is no consensus on the goal, method, sources, and scope of natural theology. Secondly, it is better to focus on the overall advantages and strengths of the criteria as a whole. Thirdly, one should not perceive the criterion of a successful argument as one-dimensional. Rather, view the criterion as a "process" that allows each criterion to consider the merits of other criteria despite its own strengths. Fourthly, by considering the criterion as a process, the relationship and interaction of these three criteria become possible according to the type, stage, and context of the argument. Consequently, in natural theology, we can benefit from all three criteria together and not separately

از موضوعات مهم در الاهیات و فلسفه، سخن در باب خداباوری و نقطة مقابل آن، یعنی الحاد است. خداناباوران با رد جهان بینی یکتاپرستی، ایمان و سرسپردگی به فرد یا چیزی، باور به خدای متشخص و نقش آفرین در هستی و زندگی انسان، باورها و قوانین قطعی و دگم، مناسک و شعائر توحیدی، جاودانگی طلبی و آرمان شهرگرایی ادیان توحیدی و ...، در صدد ارائة دیدگاهی مستقل و به دور از و بلکه در مقابل داشته های خداباوران هستند. در اینجا مسأله مهم این است که، آیا ملحدان و خداناباوران در ادعای استقلال خویش و دوری از خداباوری در جهان نگری، باورها و کارکردها حقیقتاً صادق هستند یا خیر. این نوشتار، با روش توصیفی تحلیلی و با شواهد متعدد و البته تنها توسط بخشی از آنها، این ادعا که الحاد ایده ای کاملاً مستقل و متضاد و در مقابل خداباوری است، را به چالش کشیده، آن را ناراست دانسته است. شواهد و دلایل ما را به این نتیجه می رساند که الحاد ایده ای خام و ناپخته و غیرقابل دفاع و در بهترین حالت، یک کپی بردای ناشیانه و از سر استیصال از خداباوری است و بنابراین، دیدگاهی قابل دفاع و عمل نیست.با سلامدر صورت پذیرش، چکیده انگلیسی تقدیم می شود.

Faith is a fundamental religious concept without which one cannot think of religiousness since it is the border between religiousness and irreligiousness. Talking about faith opens the way of experience for the deprived and elevates the quality of experience of faith for religious people. The first part of the article in previous issue studied Theism in Christianity and its critique; this part of the article studies Theism in Islam and deals with the areas such as qualities of faith, criticizing Theism in some sects of Islam like Hadith scholars, criticizing Theism opponents acting as extreme rationalism and final comparison of Theism in Christianity and Islam.

Dawkins, a contemporary evolutionary biologist and one of the pioneers of modern aTheism, while deeply believing in Darwinchr('39')s theory of evolution and offering an atheistic reading of it, has devoted part of his efforts to presenting various objections agains the belief in the existence of God. The point of the forthcoming research is to examine and measure these objections. In this study, in terms of gathering, the library-documental method, and in terms of assessment, the analytical method have been used. The results of the research show that Dawkins was wrong in all these objections, he was caught in many fallacies, and contrary to his belief, the belief in the Almighty God is the best rational explanation in the world.