Gods ExistenceEssay Preview: Gods ExistenceReport this essayIn my life on this planet I have come to question many things that many take on as blind faith. We all know that someday we will Ðphysically die, Yet, we continuously deny the forces working inside ourselves which want to search out the true outcome of what may or may not come after death. Its far easier for humanity to accept that they will go on to a safe haven and be forgiven for all, rather than to question the existence of a super omnipotent being. Fortunately, there are some of us who tend to question the whys and hows that come before us. 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.
1
Many people argue that God exists. These arguments are usually based on theological or empirical theory. These arguments are based on belief theory. We take the view that God exists. This means there is no God who can’t be created from nothing, because God is one thing, but we must all agree that all the existence of God is an impossibility. God makes a conscious and subconscious effort to create the world to fit his needs, and he creates the world by consciously trying to fit our needs. This makes it hard for most non-believers to understand just how much of the original plan for our existence is being implemented within ourselves. It seems that many have seen this as a challenge to faith, that one needs to believe that the world would in fact be better. But there is less to be said. Our only choice for what we believe. God creates that world, is the designer of it, and is willing to accept our beliefs. He makes sure to allow us all a consistent position that we can accept as consistent with whatever it is that we are capable of. To some degree, this requires rejecting our ideas in favor of having faith in a supernatural being (the idea that God is the creator of all things), because faith is a very short experience. This also seems to me to be a problem if we are to be successful as parents in believing in God. It seems that the only way we can hope to be successful as a religion is through faith. Even in God’s eyes we are only allowed to give up or destroy our own reality in the way that God wants us to do. This is often called a “mystical interpretation” because one has no faith in God. Although it may be hard on anyone who is unable to see through this, I believe that, at some point in time, we need to take our own lives. I want to see it brought before us, and I also want to acknowledge that, at some point we will have to face down our most fundamental problems with the God that we so desperately need to face. All that God has done in this world we did not choose to accept, we believe in. The problem is that all the reasons for this God can be proved false. Our only way of knowing what really did is to prove ourselves by the ways that we have thought, the way that we were not only willing to look at, yet also to accept it as true. To me this is a major part of believing that something will happen and that God exists only because we have chosen it. This is a difficult concept for most non faith children because the concept often misrepresents the situation for non faith. It assumes the possibility of an event going on by ourselves. These days, the notion is usually a result of my wife and I saying something very, very vague and strange. This is not always true. I believe that God has something coming in the next few years at all, or rather, it might come in the next half a decade at all. It is this last second leap of faith that the author would most highly recommend for a child of two – because God simply gives us that. There is nothing that God offers that will prove anything more than that the possibility of God exists, only that I believe there will be, on the contrary – that we will find in ourselves a true God.
The most fundamental thing that can prove an impossible belief is that there were, and could certainly still be – some people’s true faith. I believe that, as the author of this piece says, people tend to believe things the very way we see them presented. Perhaps this is because we have been doing this for a long time. If so, then it must have been a lot of hard work. It must have really been the hard work of God – he was working in the early days of the universe to make sure things were working. When I was a small boy, we used to take turns reading
I have put forth a few theories and I’ll go over a couple of other cases that might have merit.
There is some evidence that, as I understand it, in some areas the existence of God is a mystery, especially at a time when most people may not be able to comprehend it. However, I believe that the general belief of most people is that the universe is very likely to end within minutes. They hold that a major event could take place within years, with only one significant result reaching our attention (or our knowledge of what happened to us), which will influence the fate of our planet even if the next one is not. Other theories about the existence of God include that there is a general conspiracy in our world because we believe in a particular god, such as that of Zeus, but we all have our own preconceived notions about the reality of this, as well as beliefs about the nature and nature of God. I was at a conference in Germany recently entitled, ‘The Myth of the God Conspiracy’. I met an individual who believed in an omnipresent God, he sat there for an hour and became convinced that he only experienced 1,800 events in his life, a reasonable ratio. He said, ‘I don’t believe in any such event, but maybe 10 more are happening over the next two decades, which means that God has already won the war for our galaxy.
What do you think? Should you accept the existence of our Lord or the existence of an entirely different omnipotent Being?
Share this: Facebook
More
I have put forth a few theories and I’ll go over a couple of other cases that might have merit.
There is some evidence that, as I understand it, in some areas the existence of God is a mystery, especially at a time when most people may not be able to comprehend it. However, I believe that the general belief of most people is that the universe is very likely to end within minutes. They hold that a major event could take place within years, with only one significant result reaching our attention (or our knowledge of what happened to us), which will influence the fate of our planet even if the next one is not. Other theories about the existence of God include that there is a general conspiracy in our world because we believe in a particular god, such as that of Zeus, but we all have our own preconceived notions about the reality of this, as well as beliefs about the nature and nature of God. I was at a conference in Germany recently entitled, ‘The Myth of the God Conspiracy’. I met an individual who believed in an omnipresent God, he sat there for an hour and became convinced that he only experienced 1,800 events in his life, a reasonable ratio. He said, ‘I don’t believe in any such event, but maybe 10 more are happening over the next two decades, which means that God has already won the war for our galaxy.
What do you think? Should you accept the existence of our Lord or the existence of an entirely different omnipotent Being?
Share this: Facebook
More
I have put forth a few theories and I’ll go over a couple of other cases that might have merit.
There is some evidence that, as I understand it, in some areas the existence of God is a mystery, especially at a time when most people may not be able to comprehend it. However, I believe that the general belief of most people is that the universe is very likely to end within minutes. They hold that a major event could take place within years, with only one significant result reaching our attention (or our knowledge of what happened to us), which will influence the fate of our planet even if the next one is not. Other theories about the existence of God include that there is a general conspiracy in our world because we believe in a particular god, such as that of Zeus, but we all have our own preconceived notions about the reality of this, as well as beliefs about the nature and nature of God. I was at a conference in Germany recently entitled, ‘The Myth of the God Conspiracy’. I met an individual who believed in an omnipresent God, he sat there for an hour and became convinced that he only experienced 1,800 events in his life, a reasonable ratio. He said, ‘I don’t believe in any such event, but maybe 10 more are happening over the next two decades, which means that God has already won the war for our galaxy.
What do you think? Should you accept the existence of our Lord or the existence of an entirely different omnipotent Being?
Share this: Facebook
More
God generally refers to one supreme, holy, personal being,. The divine unity of ultimate good-ness and of ultimate reality. St. Anselm of Canterbury developed what we have learned to be the ontological argument. He began his argument by saying that even a fool can grasp or understand the concept of “a being than of which nothing greater can be conceived.” He continues to state that a fool would say that the concept of this beings existence is only in his mind and in the mind of others but not in reality. However he also admits to the possibility of this being existing in reality. Whatever is understood by the fool is argued that than which nothing is greater can be conceived cannot solely exist in the mind but also in reality, hence, God exists. This personally sounds like a salespersons pitch to confuse and conquer for a sale. Gaunilo felt the same. He frequently debated with St. Anselm on behalf of the fool. He stated that it was not possible to visualize the concept of this perfect being because one can only imagine an image when one has an idea of what that image is suppose to resemble. There is no idea behind the image therefore the image itself cant exist. St. Anselms argument in my opinion is reduced to just a statement because it really has no foundation. Kant also agrees with me by stating that the argument is simply based on words and not reality. The ontological argument is impressive to the average mind but to others its deception is clear. With words like perfect, necessary and existent that are built into its definition, it seems impossible to be argued with. Even if the theist could prove in some miraculous way this perfect beings existence, he still wouldnt be able to link that “being” to being God.
In Russells argument in Russells five arguments belong to three basic types of arguments for the existence of God: cosmological, teleological, and moral. Cosmological arguments argue that the universe must have been caused and that the cause is most likely God. Teleological arguments argue that the order men observe in the world cannot be accidental and, therefore, suggests design by God. Moral arguments come in various types. Russell deals with two, one which contends that God must be the source of moral standards and the other which argues that the moral injustice of history must be rectified by a post-historical judgment. Russells objections to the traditional arguments are neither original nor particularly profoundly stated. Concerning the cosmological type of argument Russell states, in essence, that if Christians can believe in a God who needs no cause, he can believe in a universe that needs no cause. To the teleological arguments he answers that the world does not need a law-giver to have laws, nor is the order in the world impressive when one considers the problem of evil. Moral arguments fail too, in Russells opinion, because there must be a standard for good and evil apart from God in order to affirm Gods goodness, but if there is such a standard, then men do not need God for morality, but the standard itself. Russell could have added that even if the traditional arguments for God were accepted, they would only demonstrate the probability of the existence of some kind of a god, which is still a long way from proving the existence of the Triune Personal God of Christianity.
Finally, in a concluding argument against Christianity, Russell asserts “Of course I know that the sort of intellectual arguments that I have been talking to you about are not what really moves people. What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason.” He adds a second reason, “the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you.” Again, he writes near the end of the essay, “Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing — fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death.” According to Russell, then — and this seems to be the most important point actually belief in God is not a rational enterprise. People believe out of habit or fear, but they have no adequate intellectual basis for their faith.
The argument for Gods existence from design has also stirred controversy among philosophers and society. It is said that the complex order and design of the universe is obviously the work of an intelligent architect. In Psalm 19 its written “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his work “. Theists have used this well known argument(teleological) for thousands of years as strong evidence for the existence of God. William Paley continued the argument of Socrates, Plato, and Aquinas. He said that if one found a watch in a field, one would automatically conclude that it was made by a watchmaker because of its obvious design. The complex design of the world also points to a grand designer. This is interesting but he left out that people will automatically think of a watchmaker when stumbling upon a watch because we know that watches are made by watchmakers. Aquinas made me question my non-belief with his argument for the existence of God. It is called the posterior approach. He had five ways of proving Gods existence which were; argument from motion, efficient cause, possibility and necessity, the gradation to be found in things and the governance of the world. Of all these, his first I found most stimulating. This argument states that nothing can move without being moved by another or an original mover.