One of the most heavily debated topics of discussion throughout the world is the existence of God. No matter where one lives or their background there is always some religion claiming to know the true God, and many others believing in no gods at all. There are many logical arguments for the existence of God that each have unique features from philosophers such as William Paley, and Blaise Pascal. But where there are believers in God there are also those who do not believe there is enough evidence to believe, these individuals include William Clifford and William James. The various arguments used for the belief, and even the disbelief in God, provides that based upon evidence it is more beneficial to believe in the existence of God.
When one views humanity and the world around them it is easy to see that it could not of been made randomly, or with no purpose. The world is too complex to not have a higher power that created the world with thoughtful consideration. William Paley believes
…show more content…
I believe this because we are too complex of a species to not have had a creator and some kind of purpose. Also, why would we exist if not to reach some greater goal. It seems unlikely that once we die all we have done is simply over. While I agree with the philosophers' arguments for the existence of God, it seems faith is the critical thing one must obtain to make their arguments more plausible. Without faith one is mindlessly following what others believe, a state not beneficial for the person or humanity. Also, there are too many things in the world that occur that go beyond human understanding, such as miracles of healing. How else can divine or even unexplainable things be explained without the concept of a God who is omnipotent and omniscient. Those philosophers who disagree with the existence of God only enable believers to construct more logical theories of why he does
Paley’s claims that the universe must have an intelligent maker due to the complexity of its design. His primary
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
forgiven, so there is no need to ‘force’ yourself to believe. This argument is far from proving the existence of God, it argues more for. the purpose of believing in him rather than whether he actually exists. The.. In conclusion, all the arguments bar one that have been covered have. been strongly criticised, questioning their validity.
William Clifford author of the “Ethics of Belief” creates the argument that it is always wrong for anyone to believe anything upon ‘insufficient evidence’. What does Clifford define evidence as and what is sufficient? Clifford’s argument is more scientific. Basing our beliefs off methodical approaches. If we base all our decisions off sufficient and what we declare to be reliable then what do we stand for? We have our own credentials to believe things even if we do not know why. These beliefs could be innate and
Truth, what is truth? This question itself has a thousand answers, no person can ever be sure of what truth is rather, truth can be justified, it can checked for reliability with strong evidences and logic. If the evidence proves to be accurate then it can be established that a certain answer is the truth. However, have we ever tried to think about what intrigues us to seek the truth? To think about a question and set foot firmly on the path of knowledge. Definitely it has! That was the very cause itself which is why this world has witnessed some of the greatest philosophers like Aristotle, Plato and Socrates etc. along with the school of thought. The ability to think and reason is one of the greatest ability humans have, it is what distinguishes us from the animals. It is what gives us free will, the ability to control our own outcomes. However, it is that ability to ‘think’ itself which has caused men to rebel with the myths and statements established about the unseen and natural forces since the beginning of time. It gave rise to questions such as: Do aliens exist? Is there a world of the unseen? Life after Death and the most popular question since the beginning of times, Does God exists? And the answer is ‘yes’. Here is how I will justify my stance.
Saint Aquinas defines the existence of God with the upmost clarity. Saint Anselm and William Paley attempt to tackle the existence of God but are weighed down by weaknesses within their argument. Even with Saint Anselm being a Christian theologian, he does not incorporate his personal religious beliefs into his argument. St. Anselm relies purely on logic and ontology to define what he constitutes as God, defined as a being in which nothing greater can be thought. This definition is general enough to be consistent with what various individuals establish as their “God.” Anselm uses Tinkerbell as an example to defend his thought to reality premise. Tinkerbell relies on the faith from children to believe in her existence for her to exist. For Anselm, if something is thought then in some realm, it must exist. However, St. Anselm does not address crucial arguments that deteriorate his position. The translation from thought into reality is not clear. A sole idea constructed by the mind does not establish its place in reality. Dragons are thought and even read to a child during their adolesc...
The existence of god has been relentlessly debated with many strong arguments. This essay will primarily discuss the most prevalent arguments for and against the existence of a higher being. Although there are many strong arguments for both atheism and theism, ultimately the theist point of view is greater justified morally and logically.
He had two different approaches to how the universe was created. Paley compared a watched the way the universe, he thought the world was like a machine it must have a des... ... middle of paper ... ... nthropic Principle’ believed that ‘Nature produces living beings but with fine tuning that is found in the universe; life could just as easily not developed into earth’ I think that this quote is trying to say that the universe has been developed by evolution and was created by God, a designer.
and how the World came about. But can people judge what it says in a
Several authors that we have studied have argued for and against the concept of believing in a higher power. It is a debate that has been argued over since the days of Plato and Aristotle, and it continues to be written about today. People have their own views on what happens after life and if it is or is not defined by a god, and these views essentially are the dogmas that define different religions. Blaise Pascal had his own opinion on whether a reasonable person should believe in God. Essentially, Pascal believed that there is no justifiable reason not to believe in God. Despite the counterarguments by several scholars against Pascal’s proposition, his proof still stands as a justification for a reasonable person to believe.
Instinctually, humans know that there is a greater power in the universe. However, there are a few who doubt such instinct, citing that logically we cannot prove such an existence. St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, wrote of five proofs for the existence of God. The Summa Theologica deals with pure concepts; these proofs rely on the world of experience - what one can see around themselves. In these proofs, God will logically be proven to exist through reason, despite the refutes against them.
...hat the universe is not the same as a human and these two vastly different ideas cannot be compared with each other, Paley argues that the purpose of a watch in terms of its function and complexity, that it had to be created by a designer. Same goes for humans. Hume proves that Paley has a weak conclusion by stating that this does not prove that there is a God, just someone of higher intelligence.
Throughout history, the worship of gods has been a part of daily life even amidst those cultures that have been considered "savage". The reactions, movement, existence, comparisons, purposes, and common beliefs of the world show that there must be a god. The existence of a god is an irrefutable fact.
God can be defined as a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions (1). There are many people that do not believe in any religion. People who do not believe in a religion have no reason for believing in a God. People who do not believe in a God and argue against the existence of God are proving something that is completely false. There is a God for numerous reasons.
In today’s modern western society, it has become increasingly popular to not identify with any religion, namely Christianity. The outlook that people have today on the existence of God and the role that He plays in our world has changed drastically since the Enlightenment Period. Many look solely to the concept of reason, or the phenomenon that allows human beings to use their senses to draw conclusions about the world around them, to try and understand the environment that they live in. However, there are some that look to faith, or the concept of believing in a higher power as the reason for our existence. Being that this is a fundamental issue for humanity, there have been many attempts to explain what role each concept plays. It is my belief that faith and reason are both needed to gain knowledge for three reasons: first, both concepts coexist with one another; second, each deals with separate realms of reality, and third, one without the other can lead to cases of extremism.