Discuss the main arguments for the existence of god
Discuss the main arguments for the existence of god
In today's society we are constantly searching for truths. This seems to have been the way for many years, but at the fast rate science and technology are advancing humans are demanding proof for the existence of God. It is a subject that that has been the center of debate for many years and will be for years to come. The simple reason that in this age now, it is difficult to find deductive proof for the existence of god. We can never be sure that there is no God but, at the same time we can never be sure that there is a God; it would seem that this is what keeps the very existence of God alive regardless of belief and faith.
This leads me onto the ontological argument which favors the existence of God, concerned with being. It argues that the very concept of God implies his existence. St. Anslem an 11th Century Archbishop of Canterbury's view is that if an individual gives total devotion and faith to the object of god then its non-existence is unthinkable, God is a being of which nothing greater can be conceived . The ontological argument defines God as being the greatest possible being and, God exists at least in the mind or understanding. A being that exists only in the mind is not as great as a being that exists in the mind and the body and if God only existed in the in the mind he would not be the greatest possible thing, therefore God must exist in reality and in the mind. I believe that an individuals own personal God exists both in the body and the mind, and that personal understanding of your own God gives that God an existence.
Another argument is the cosmological argument. in seeking to find the existence of God, Greek philosophers; Plato and Aristotle justify the existence of the universe to justify the existence of God. Questions were raised as to "why is there a universe" without it we were not inquisitive by asking "why" then there would be no need to know or understand the existence of the universe and ultimately God. Something that we all experience is that the universe does exist. Liebniz states that "nothing takes place without sufficient reason" This statement is known as "The principle of sufficient reason" ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Another argument is the cosmological argument. in seeking to find the existence of God, Greek philosophers; Plato and Aristotle justify the existence of the universe to justify the existence of God. Questions were raised as to "why is there a universe" without it we were not inquisitive by asking "why" then there would be no need to know or understand the existence of the universe and ultimately God. Something that we all experience is that the universe does exist. Liebniz states that "nothing takes place without sufficient reason" This statement is known as "The principle of sufficient reason" which means that nothing that happens can happen without a concrete explanation. To apply this to every question, you will return to something, which does not depend on anything else I.e. God. Each object in the universe exists, but it need not have done, there is no proof to say that you or I exist, and so the question is always raised. "why" each object exists, "why" the universe exists and "why" God exists.
A Christian philosopher called Thomas Aquinas argued the cosmological point of view. His views were, Motion and Change, whatever is moved is moved by another and because of the reason that everything is in motion. Aquinas believed that something had to be there to start the process and that something is God. A criticism of this was by Isaac Newton, where it was said that "everything can be in a state of rest or will move in a straight line unless changed by other forces. But that movement may be a property within the thing or being". Another view was that there has to be something that causes others to change or exist, as they cannot cause themselves. But David Hume criticizes this by saying, that it is in the mind that we try to find an ultimate cause and not merely just the case that something can rely on as a first cause. According to Hume, "no valid argument can establish the existence of a supreme being, or of anything else".
Aquinas goes on to say that everything at one point in time did not exist and so there was a time when nothing existed, nothing could not cause change so this is impossible and something must exist that does not depend on another thing and that something is God. Another cosmological view is the "degrees of perfection" the cause of everything is something that is perfect and must bring things into being, and finally Aquinas' quest to prove that god exists lies in the "teleological/design argument that involves the reasoning that everything is working towards a specific end. There has to be a creator of the universe, the whole aim is to prove that we have a purpose in our existence and that God is our creator, but still Aquinas fails to actually prove the existence of God, it does not "hold enough weight" to convince a person who does not believe in God. Perhaps there was a first cause to the beginning of the universe, but still there is no proof that, that cause is god. It would seem, then, that if the universe is to be explained, rather than just accepted as 'brute fact', that explanation will have to be in terms of a self-existent creator. Thus the cosmological argument presents the dilemma: either the universe is divinely created or it is an ultimately inexplicable given fact. But the argument does not persuade us to choose one of these alternatives rather than the other.
Not forgetting the religious point of view, which is very different from the other arguments in the reasoning that God's existence is consequent from faith. A persons faith brings forward the very existence of a supreme being regardless of concrete proof, it is based on the individuals spiritual contact with God. They believe that their faith is proof enough that there is a God. The thing these people are experiencing is called the "Holy experience!". Believers put their religious feelings down to God, but there could be many explanations for the feelings that occur, still it does not prove God's existence. A Sceptic, Atheist or Agnostic would demand absolute proof to these experiences or feelings. In this post-modern society, we have scientific knowledge, knowledge of the world as we experience it. The growth of this knowledge and the desire for reason and evidence which it entails means we live in a de-mystified world. People look to God for hope and want some meaning in life. There is no real way of knowing if followers of God are certain or just confused, the only thing that keeps them in the belief that God does exist is, their undeniable faith in what they believe in. This is what keeps their God in existence.
Technology and science can prove or disprove many phenomena's, and make amazing revelations about the universe in which we live. However the existence of God is one thing that cannot be totally explained. After looking at the different arguments that surround the existence of god it seems quite clear that there is no solid proof and although the arguments are pretty impressive they still do not persuade me one way or the other. I believe it is something we are never meant to know, if we were then the great thinkers of our time would have found the answer. If we were to know our own existence and destiny then we wouldn't have anything to strive for as we would already know what the end holds for us. Personally I think belief in God is good if it can make ones life more fulfilling. I believe the world would be a strange place if there wasn't a universal being to believe in.
