We can stop to think about what we can physically do as humans and consider that God made us from dirt to believe there is a God. This idea in regards to the proof that there is a God who he created us. One could say it is our human nature to wrestle with the fact that God does not exist or not because it is who we are as humans to think that God does not exist. There are great philosophers such as Aristotle and Agustin who try their hardest to prove that God does not exist. Subsequently, on the Big Bang theory, some people who were genuinely disturbed, such as Einstein, who wrote privately, "This circumstance of an expanding universe irritates me…To admit such possibilities seems senseless."
The fact is that God transcends our mental capacities and he controls our comprehension in all spheres of life (Noone, 2009). In line with Foreman's Presentation, concerning "Approaching the Question of God's Existence," one can argue that the ideas of McCloskey in interpreting cosmological and teleological arguments are based on a wrong hypothesis. On the Cosmological Argument, the existence of God has been a reality, whether the creator was a being or a thing. The existence of the universe is not enough to validate the existence of God. One can come up with an argument which intends to give an insight on how people understand the creation theory, and where God came from.
When discussing the philosophy of God’s plausible existence, several well composed arguments are presented, from Anselm’s Ontological Argument based the definition of God, to the Teleolgical argument grounded in the idea that a complex creation demands an intelligent creator; additionally, many debate that there is no need for a rational explanation as we are required in the nature of belief to take ‘leap of a faith’ regarding the existence of God. While each side offers valuable insight into this dilemma, I would argue that neither fully proves the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God. However, as I will discuss in the rest of the paper, the Teleolgical Argument and Kierkengaard’s faith eliminates dread argument when combined can reasonably provide evidence for the existence of God. Out of the five major opinions for God existence in regards to reason, the Teleolgical argument does the best job of not just proving a God exists but
Descartes also offers some doubt into the belief that God exists, for he claims that, “I can attach existence to God, even though no God exists” (44). He raises the idea that his thoughts do not entail existence, however, he claims that existence is inseparable from God because he cannot think of God as anything other than existence. As a result, he concludes that, “the necessity of the thing itself, namely the existence of God, forces me to think this” (44). Here, it seems to me that Descartes is implying the second half of the Cartesian circle, that God existence forces him to think that is distinctly and clearly
However, I cannot completely agree with either point of view concerning God’s power. According to Hick’s theory God is, was, and always will be all powerful, but the Process-Relational Theory suggests that God though a very powerful being, He is not all powerful. Both suggest that evil exists either because of God’s awesome power or due to the lack of that power. As a Christian it is easy to agree with John Hick’s arguments that God is all knowing and all good but can the belief that God is all powerful hold its own in a world full of evil. If he is all good why would he not use his bounty of power to rid the world of evil?
Therefore, God must exist so that the definition would be true. Anselm’s argument is based on this known definition of the concept of God alone. Descartes’ argument for the existence of God is based on his foundation of knowledge, logic. Humans have the idea in their minds of infinite perfection. Humans also have the idea of themselves as inferior to this idea as imperfect.
Critical Analyses of St. Anselm’s argument for the Existence of God and Douglas Gasking’s argument for the Non-Existence of God. Arguments against St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God St. Anselm begins with a definition of God, argues that an existent God is superior to a non-existent God and concludes that God must exist in reality, for his non-existence would contradict the definition of God itself. The argument does not seem plausible to an unbiased person, even at the very first reading. It seems as if not all aspects of the question under scrutiny have been considered. The basic assumption, on which the entire argument stands, that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined can seem doubtful to a person who doubts the existence of God, for if one doubts that there is a being than which no greater can be conceived, then he may also be skeptical if any person has thoughts about the same being, whose existence itself is doubtful.
These arguments intend to determine God’s existence mostly through logic and non-aligned to experience. Anselm’s argument is founded on the belief that God exists in the mind, and thus it is probable for God to exist in reality. According to this claim, something that exists in the mind and can also possibly exist in reality is something greater than it is (Malcolm, 1960). In this case, Anselm contends that God cannot only exist in the mind, but it is possible that he also exists in reality since God is the greatest possible thing. However, there are some other philosophers, including Immanuel Kant, who object this argument, disputing facts about the existence of God.
He writes, "it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims. "Gould's and theists who believe in evolution arguement could be pragmatical,
In his 1802 work Natural Theology, William Paley attempts to logically prove that God exists and created the universe, known the Intelligent Design argument (Himma). In this argument, he states that the universe is like a watch in three relevant aspects, complexity, regularity, and purpose. Because of this, he says, we know that a watch has a creator, therefore the universe must also have a creator. However, I believe that this argument is flawed because I think the analogy does not work on two of these counts, regularity, and purpose. I also believe that Paley uses circular logic to explain his definition of purpose.