Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
how religion impacts morality and ethics
How does religion influence moral behaviour
the effects of religion on society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: how religion impacts morality and ethics
Whether god exists or not has been in discussion for thousands of years, and an important discussion. Whether it is rational to believe in god or not is another story, like believing in god itself, this topic has brought many discussions. It is one thing to discuss whether god is real or not and it is a complete other to discuss whether it is rational to believe in god or not. I believe that while there may not be any convincing evidence or arguments that God does exist, I do still believe that it is still rational to believe that god does exist. I think this because, believing in God is not simply just believing that he exists, but believing that it can bring good to our lives, we otherwise would not have. It teaches us to have a moral responsibility not only to others, but ourselves. It is obvious that many people do believe in god, but many of us choose to do so for reasons other than just believing in God. I do believe that just because there is no evidence, that does not mean God doesn’t exist. Like I said, God brings more to our lives than just a belief, but an ability to achieve a better one. And even if God is just an imaginary figure, he is an imaginary figure that brings hope and goodness to our lives, which we can never discount.
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...
... middle of paper ...
...uld be fair to judge someone, because they choose to believe in a greater force. However, while it is impossible to know if god or exist or not, I do believe that it is rational to believe in god based on the fact that it brings positive things to our lives. So, in the end, I believe we all must at least remain agnostic, and be open to different possibilities. It is likely that evidence will never surface that suggest god does exist, but what we must do is make a choice to believe or not.
Works Cited
Pojman, Louis P. "The Cosmological Argument for God's Existence and Objections." Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings. New York: Oxford UP, 2004. N. pag. Print.
Pojman, Louis P. "The Problem of Evil and the Rationality of Faith." Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings. New York: Oxford UP, 2004. N. pag. Print.
In conclusion, Descartes made an argument to prove God’s existence and seemed to be able to prove that he existed, but after a taking a closer look and revaluating his theories you see that he uses a lot of circular reasoning. It is really tough to believe any of what Descartes is saying. After reading his meditations you are left confused, mostly because you are trying to decipher what he is saying and you end up going around and around because of the circular reasoning. Even without the circular reasoning the argument just doesn’t make any sense, especially in today’s world, without any data. To be able to fathom a sound argument for the existence of God just sounds too preposterous to believe. To believe that God exists based of faith and religion is what people today and in Descartes time, as well, believed. To say that God exists because there must have been some superior creator that put this idea in my head is very far fetched. People don’t need to be told that God exists because most people already believe and most of them know that he does.
If I could answer these questions, there would be no need for the study of philosophy, as they have no correct answer. I do believe in God, but I do not know why except for a feeling inside which may be inborn or the result of my environment. David Hume’s philosophies are based upon trusting one’s feelings as is evidenced by his reliance on poets instead of scientists. I think I will also go with my feelings on this issue. God does exist but humans may never have the capacity to understand the Hows and Whys.
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...
Before the discussion is started let me first clarify some terminology is order to make my argument more clear. In my thesis statement I offered the premise that when given to the criteria put forth by Pascal that a sincere decision about belief in God would be impossible. By sincere decision I mean a decision that you can evaluate and reevaluate against anything that claims the opposite and still be able to hold to it. If you have a belief based on a decision that stems from no evidence then you have nothing to evaluate it by, so that belief cannot be sincere, it is merely a blind ch...
The Question of whether or not God can exist will never be answered during anyone's natural lifetime. Maybe it is a question that is not supposed to be answered.
Is it ever justified for us to believe in anything on insufficient evidence? William Clifford and Joseph Long have different answers to this question. Clifford thinks that it is always morally wrong because we have a moral obligation to exam our beliefs epistemically. On the contrary, Long argues that there are prudent values to believe something without absolute justification, therefore, it is permissible to do so.
God is not real and does not exist. There many reasons why god cannot exist. Many people believe that God does exist but those are just beliefs, there is no real evidence that God exists. People try to prove that god exists with the Bible; however we don’t now that the bible is the truth. In many ways, people believe that God is a person, but science has proven that there is a particle that must’ve created everything. This particle is known as the God particle. Although science has proven that some form of God created everything, the Christian churches and Muslim religion refuse to accept this as fact.
In my opening argument, I wish to prove that atheism/non-belief is justified. This is through an argument known as the presupposition of atheism. Atheism/Agnosticism is perfectly justified through the fact that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim, hence in the absence of extraordinary evidence the saying that God exists may be regarded as false.
The existence of God is quite controversial issue. God has different names in the world, and a lot of people, strongly believe in his existence. While, on the other hand, there are also people who don’t believe in his existence. In their discussion entitled “Does God Exist?” William Lane Craig, who is the supporter of the idea of existence of God, debates with Austin Dacey, who is an atheist, on the idea of existence of God. They provide the strong arguments and their debates are quite interesting, and innovative (not similar to those arguments, we usually read about in book). These are the fresh views on the question of existence and non-existence of God.
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.
The question of whether there is any clear evidence of God's existence, tried to argue for many centuries, by engaging in this enlightened minds, representing both positions on this controversy.In recent years, evidence refuting the possibility of the existence of God have become the cause of many clashes, accusing at the same time anyone who dares to say that he believes in God, a man who believes illusions and irrational.Karl Marx stressed that everyone who believes in God must suffer from a mental disorder which affects its ability to correct thinking.The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believes in God the Creator has the illusion and asserts itself in this belief because they believe in the factor "fulfilling the wishes of" what causes human something that Freud recognized the undeserved position.The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche openly said that faith is synonymous with the reluctance of knowing what is true.The votes of these three historical figures (and others) are now re-presented by a new generation of atheists who claim that belief in God is intellectually justified.Is that what this is all about?Is belief in God is a symptom of irrational thinking?Is there a logical and reasonable evidence for the existence of God?Is beyond recourse to the Bible, the question of God's existence can be confirmed, refuted this position with both old and new atheists, and faith in the Creator of factly justified?Yes, it can.And what's more, the importance of evidence of the existence of God makes the position of atheists seem to be very convincing.To provide evidence for the existence of God, we must first put the right questions.We'll start with one of the most important, metaphysical questions: "Why do we have somet...
... God and how He is related to us – how powerful He is to make everything in this world works; how He made everything almost perfect for us. I have also learned that believing He exist, makes me understand more about His existence, just like what St. Anselm said. I believe that believing He exists, is what makes Him exist. For me, Yes, God really exist.
...ne that is non-existent, it is based on confusion. As Kant puts it, existence is not predicate, an asset or a substance that can be said to possess or lack certain traits. When individuals point out that God is existent, they are not in the real sense saying that there is an existent God and that he contains the traits of existence (Purtill 297).
From the discussion, it can be concluded that existence of God can be proved and developed by logical reasoning. They can be proved by seeking answers to our everyday questions like what can be bigger than our reason, who dictates solar system to act like an animate body. The evidence may not have physical existence but it is supported by the physical elements of nature.
There is a lot of argument about does God exist or not exist. It was