The Existence of God
Essay Preview: The Existence of God
Report this essay
The issue regarding existence of God is not a recent argument among atheists and theists. It is nearly as old as human existence. The modern interpretation of these arguments refers to the ability or inability of our intellectual ability to justify the belief in a God that none can see. The level of human intellect and knowledge is relative. Light would not exist without darkness and good in absence of evil. It is quite possible that free will and determinism, nothingness compared to something, and order against chaos, are merely different aspects of the same circle of scientific reason. Thus one can argue that believers and non believers of existence of God are both on the same track of scientific circle, just travelling in opposite directions.
Since the emergence of first civilization, there have emerged several conceptions of God as well. These include the monotheistic God of Judaism and Islam and Trinitarian God from Christianity. God in Buddhism has a non-theist nature. Despite the difference of opinions among the man, God has always existed. Nut in the shell, all the believers of existence of God, believe in an incorporeal and immaterial existence. On other hand, atheists have faith in a firmly material world with no after life.
Apart from faith and revelation, philosophical reasoning alone, according to Thomas Aquinas, can prove to be sufficient to demonstrate that there is a God. Structure of the world and nature are two important elements that can provide an answer to the never ending dispute among believers and non believers. Thomas Aquinas suggests that reasoning can be drawn from these two elements respectively. It is imperative to determine the characteristics of the questions first. It is important to recognize that we can understand the reason that God is, however we cannot know what God is.
In the debate over existence of God, there are several arguments present. The teleological arguments present a common pattern of order in the universe. It suggests arguments qua regularity. The other teleological argument suggests a universe with direction and goal. Thus it proposes a universe qua purpose. Then there is the argument from beauty.
In contrast there are also objections that question the existence of God.
One of the objection points out that it seems there is no God, because in case one of the two contraries was infinite, the other would be destroyed in total. God means infinite goodness. Thus if the God existed, there would be no evil in this world. However evil prevails in this world, therefore the existence of God is questionable.
Furthermore it seems unnecessary to assume that what can be accounted for by certain principles has been produced by many. Everything in this world can be accounted for by further principles if suppose God did not exist. Nature and human reason are two elements that can provide justification. Therefore there is no such call for Gods existence.
Thomas Aquinas presents his argument by explaining that goal oriented behavior is experienced by all bodies complying with natural laws. This is applicable even if they lack awareness. However nothing without awareness can be set for a goal, only if there is someone else to direct it with awareness and understanding. He explained as the arrow needs an archer, thus everything in nature is set towards its goal by someone supreme with understanding that is God.
Similarly, William Paley follows in the footsteps of Thomas Aquinas, and justifies using the analogy of a watch. He explains that the various parts of a watch are framed and set together for a particular purpose; telling the time. A smart mind would conclude that the watch has been designed by an intelligent and qualified designer, despite the fact if one fails to grab the concept of its mechanism. Even if the watch broke or got damaged, one would still understand that there is a sharp and intelligent mind behind its design. As the existence of the watch points towards the watch maker, similarly the existence of this world points towards a more grand designer; God. Also one does not need to know the purpose behind the watch or the universe in order to suppose it has a designer. In simpler terms, the design itself implies a designer with a purpose.
David Humes Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, presents further argument and questions the perfection of God, presented by Thomas and Paley. He uses three main characters in his dialogue; Cleanthes, Philo and Demea. Cleanthes accepts natural theology and justifies a posteriori to God. On the other hand, Hume brings forward his views in form of Philos critique. Demea presents an argument that is not relevant to design argument, but from a faiths perspective.
Cleanthes suggests that there is absolutely great design in our world, just like that of a superior machine. Thus it suggests a great designer of the world. Cleanthes argument has major similarities with views of Paley. Thus Hume presents his argument in the form of Philos response to Cleanthes. He responds by criticizing the approach of using analogy. He suggests that like effects imply like causes, will result in a caricature of God who is just super-human designer. This justification will indicate that the God perhaps have the same kind of imperfections and his anthropomorphic nature. Thus Hume presents a picture of God that is very different from that of classic theism.
The ongoing debate regarding existence of God among atheists and theists suggests the relevance of God in our lives. Also it points towards the stimulating intellectual spirit. It is important to understand that the burden of proof regarding presence of Supreme Being lies with theists; those who consider the existence of God. The ancient teleological and design arguments have particularly been criticized for their approach based on analogies. Roberick Chisholm, famous American philosopher pointed out the fact that the reason for atheistic influences in previous generations was because one of the brightest philosophers of that time were atheists themselves. However, today