Although Descartes embraces quite a grand statement on the issues of God, I felt that his beliefs were biased towards his own perception and lacked evidence in proving that God exists to the point beyond reasonable doubt. I believe that neither Descartes nor modern science have been able to successfully prove whether God exists or not. What's really important, no matter whether such a being exists or not, is that the ideology of God has certainly existed throughout the history of man. Moreover, the power of this ideology of God has proven to be overwhelming among the believers who have faith in its religion. Even for the non-believers or so called atheists, the ideology of God has an effect and/or an influence on them in one way or another.
Did science create the first single seed? Science was created and is not the creator. There are several different reasons why many people don’t believe in God’s Existence. Some philosophers have impacted people by invincibly denying God’s existence, philosophers believe that if something cannot be seen by eye then there’s no proof for its existence. No one can visually see God right in front of them, that causes people to ask themselves whether he exists or not.
This definition seems the most accurate of what we think when we think of God. Descartes says that we as humans do not come close to God, in that we are not as perfect and can never have as much intelligence as God no matter how much knowledge we gain. God knows... ... middle of paper ... ...Earth rotates, however we don’t have scientific proof on how the Earth began and was created. Science cannot be used to prove everything exists. There is not way to see if God exists through science as we do with other things using the Scientific method.
Some will say that God exists and they will give there proof of Gods existence, but there are others that believe God doesn’t exist and there is no such thing as God. In a group of people whenever a religious topic is raised it always leads to an argument, a heated discussion or a debate. One of the biggest debates that is going on in this world is weather God really exists or not. Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others for thousands of years. As a result I decided to go and ask my parents, family members and friends the question that has been discussed amongst people of different religion, groups and families.
I have not ever heard, how do we know we are not just imaging everything in life... ... middle of paper ... ...in God you cannot understand because there is not enough evidence to fully understand God. This essay showed us how Rene Descartes and Thomas Hobbes thought differently about both the existence of life and God. Rene believed that there are no limits to God. Whereas, Thomas believed you could believe but not understand God. Rene showed us how we are constantly thinking about things even when we are imagining things that are not real and how do we know if anything even exists.
The problem is, how do we know which one is right and which one is wrong? The honest answer to that is that there is no answer. Neither theory is 100 percent verifiable; each theory has a lack of evidence. And yet to this day people are so caught up in what they believe that the planet has trouble advancing in the study of how we came to be and there is a constant conflict between science and religion. The movie Contact by Robert Zemeckis solves the age-old conflict between Science and religion through the hero myth.
We question the creation of humanity and the religious teachings received from our parents, our church and our society. This paper examines the many rational arguments for and against the existence of God. It is based on the views of some of the great philosophers and scientists of our world. I will show that there is no sufficient proof or comprehensive arguments for the existence of God. Some people search for eternal peace through the beliefs in God; but this is an impossible belief because of the chances, the plausibility, and because of science.
An Argument for the Existence of God 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.
A dumbed down version of this is simply that no matter how far one chooses to go back, even before the Big Bang, the Universe had to have started at some point, so something had to coax it into existence. Supporters of the cosmological argument ... ... middle of paper ... ...od strong against the test of time. The cosmological argument for the existence of God is fundamentally flawed, but impossible to disprove by nature. The teleological argument for the existence of God is actually somewhat clever, but easily disprovable. Ultimately, neither philosophy nor science can ever definitively state whether or not God exists.
Doubt exists in the believer and the non-believer because it is beyond our reason to determine the truth of God's existence. St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Anselm would not agree that God is the unknown. They would however agree that reason couldn't comprehend God. Both would argue that we can say some things with certainty about God, using reason. On that knowledge, they can form their arguments for God's existence.