The existence of God has been an ongoing question that almost everyone has been searching for an answer.Back in the day when the idea of God was the centre of everyones conversation , Philosophers/Scientist began to argue of God’s existence and what God was like.With little knowledge and evidence to study whether God was real or not people came to realize that after years and years there was just not enough to justify either side which is why one should keep an open mind on topics like this.Our minds are still developing and there are such complex things out there that one day we hope to find a definite answer for.There is going to be objections that discuss on why other philosophers don 't believe in the idea of a God. There are still people to this day who are theist , atheist, and agnostic but right now we are going to focus on the philosophers and their pieces that prove that God’s existence is legit and one of the greatest philosophers that will focus on that is St.Thomas Aquinas and other philosophers with the same beliefs.
The existence of God is obviously the very first argument that arises, if we still yet have not found any evidence to justify the existence of God, why do people still believe there is one? Bertrand Russell(1872-1970) was a famous philosopher who argued back to this question by applying the Burden of proof using the teapot analogy. To sum it up, the teapot analogy is that there is a teapot somewhere out there in space that causes gravity. The teapot is “To small to be seen, to small to have gravity of its own,older than the universe itself, is responsible for the existence of gravity”(Philosophical content 5). When you apply this to the concept of God’s existence it ends up being the exact same ide...
... middle of paper ...
...thing that could possibly not be there,which Pascal Wager comes in defence and talks about the benefits there are in living life as if he did exist vs if he didn 't. Then God’s ability of not being able to deal with the existence of evil in the world comes into question which is supported by him giving us the free will and moral choice.Lastly they argue the idea that everything has an exact cause and if that exact cause hasn 't been identified yet, its probably because it caused itself .Which is opposed by the Cosmological argument where everything summed up to God being that creator.God created the universe and everything in it for a reason. We rely on one another, we learn from mistakes, we grow and advance in so many ways.Every single person and thing made on this earth was put there for a reason so there is no way the universe could have just created itself.
In conclusion I am left pretty much in the same place as I have started. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God philosophically. For every philosopher who publishes his or her opinions on the subject, three more are there to tear it down. In the end I think it is best that man does not figure out the answer to this lifelong question. Some things are better left unanswered.
One of the most argued topics throughout human history is whether or not God exists. It is argued frequently because there are several different reasonings and sub arguments in this main argument. People who believe God exists argue how God acts and whether there is one or several. People who do not believe God exists argue how the universe became into existence or if it has just always existed. In this paper, I will describe Craig's argument for the existence of God and defend Craig's argument.
Just because there is not evidence does not mean that is evidence he does not exist. I do not believe that people believe in god, just because they do believe that god exist, but because it gives them something that others cannot. It brings people together and gives people hope in the worst of times, and it can fill voids in peoples lives that are rather impossible to fill. It also gives them a reason to live, and live moral ones at that. However, this is also a problem in the discussion of th...
Reasoning like this, alone is not sufficient to prove the existence of God, but it provides us with firm ground to rationally approve and understand the existence of God. One must have faith, to truly acknowledge and believe in the existence of God because as God is perfect and we are not, we cannot see or know the true perfect with full confidence, unless God intervenes--"faith is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8).
There are many theories to why a God might exist, but the Ontological argument tells us that a God is a necessary truth based on the self-contradictory or denying the existence of God. They use the proposition of the concept of God to argue the implied existence of God. This is to suppose that God is by definition the greatest thing imaginable and that to imagine something greater which can also exist is impossible. They use the general rule of positive and negative existential claims to try and prove the existence of God. they do this in a number of ways, with the classic version of the ontological argument being the most recognized, the reductio ad absurdum ("reduction of absurdity") of the ontological argument and the modal versions of the argument. It explains that nothing can exist in the imagination alone, it must also exist in reality to truly exist, and they have decided that there has to be such a being that exists in the imagination and in reality that noting greater can exist. I do not find this argument to be true in stating the fact that God must exist in reality, al...
According to agnostics, there is absolutely no proof of a God and thus, “God” could actually be an existence fabricated from myths. In addition, it is believed that the universe is both ethereal and uncaused by any higher power; it is simply “just there”. Take the Big Bang Theory for example, agnostics claim the universe essentially sprang into existence all on its own and life is merely a series of random processes. Likewise, one could easily ask the question, if God created the universe then who created God? However, some may argue that deism is the most accurate worldview since it is most rationally correct. Many scientists today are actually discovering reasons to believe a God does exist but does not intervene in our daily lives. Philosopher, Antony Flew, was known for being a famous atheist that later took on the deist approach because of how modern science is beginning to “prove” the existence of a creator. Both agnostics and deists agree that there are explanations for mundane happenings and mystical occurrences are merely coincidental. Similarly, if there is a supposedly good God, why is there so much evil and suffering in the world? Why does he not
In conclusion, there must have been a necessary being which served as the first cause of the Universe. This necessary being can be referred to as God. I make this conclusion due to my understanding of the evidence given above and the fact that there are no reasonable arguments that beyond reasonable doubt can prove otherwise. In addition, it is my finding that the roots of the Cosmological Argument are firmly cemented in a posteriori observation (induction), as opposed to purely rational thought which is deductive. Knowing how this argument is classified is imperative because it is essential to understanding the structure of the argument and how it arrives at its conclusion.
Two arguments that best attempt to prove God's existence, are the ontological argument by St. Anselm, and the cosmological argument by St. Thomas Aquinas. The second out of the five arguments provided in the cosmological argument is based on experience and efficient cause. The efficient cause makes something happen, i.e.. Cause and effect, and this is the premises for his argument. Aquinas argues that nothing in this world can originate on it's own, and must have a first cause (God) to create an intermediate cause, to create an ultimate cause and effect. Infinity makes it impossible to have a first efficient cause, but if there is no first cause, there would be no intermediate cause (universe), and we (nature) would not exist.
The existence of God has been questioned since the beginning of time. Religions thrived on answering the unanswerable questions of the universe and people were able to find solace in the answers. As science has expanded and been able to answer these questions with natural, as opposed to supernatural answers, many people stopped looking to God and religion for the causes of things and started looking towards science. God was dead, according to many scientists and people of all professions. Many philosophers, however, have different conclusions.
and how the World came about. But can people judge what it says in a
The existence of god is indisputable. This fact is proven through reactions, movements, existence, comparisons, purposes and common beliefs in this world. God must exist for so many cultures believe in the same basic concept of the higher power, and believe so strongly, that there must be a foundation which provides the truth and cause behind these beliefs.
The statement "God exists" is not proveable, or unfalsifiable. We cannot say whether it is true or false. This is because God is not a 'fact that can be observed and subjected to testing. People do not see God i...
There are three philosophical positions that argue on the existence of God, whether He really exist or not; the Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism.
The claims of rationality and the so-called scientific approach of the atheists and agnostics have been debunked. In the coming pages we shall see that both in the creation of the universe, in things created within the universe and in the creation of living beings, an intelligently designed process is going on, and we shall demonstrate that the objections of agnostics and skeptics to this assertion are merely delusions.
The mere claim, there could be a "Proof for the Existence of God," seems to invite ridicule. But not always are those right who laugh first and think later. Remember how all-knowing doctors/scientists laughed at every new discovery. They laughed when they heard for the first time about diseases that were supposedly caused by animals so tiny that you could not see them. They continued to laugh at virtually every discovery that challenged their previous believes in an attempt to preserve the status of "have-studied-for-years-and-must-therefore-know-everything-already."