He gave no evidence about the characteristics of the Judeo-Christian God and just basically said he proved God is real. Analogies like this do a good job at making you believe that there is a designer, but you have to do more to actually believe that the designer is God. To say right off the bat that you believed in God because of this analogy would not make much sense. If you tried to convince somebody that God was real you’re going to have to dive deeper into the conversation than this watch analogy. One of the reasons that lead me to believing in God is how complex we are.
To conclude, there is little reason to believe that any other form of resurrection other than literal exists through Van Inwagen’s arguments. The causal chain reflects the patterns of nature and human form. Once a line is broken in the chain it cannot be reformed, at least in the same way it existed before. Since God created that chain he is also bound by its contingency. Further, the idea of free will presents any exact replication of an action unless it is continued by the original agent of said action.
Rejoinder: This is certainly one way out. But it is a reply most theists are unable to accept. God is supposed to be the supreme, a being that is perfect in every way. This ensures that God is worthy of our worship. To give up omnipotence is to give up this picture of God.
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
Saint Anselm delivered the strongest ontological argument for God through conceptual analysis. The ontological argument is a deductive argument that is an analytical statement that can be constructed by definition(s). He argues that one thing is necessary to exist, and that thing is God. God is a necessary being. His argument is known as reductio ad absurdum, which demonstrates through a contradiction that God exists.
The world is classified as an unexpected thing. It is, therefore, clear that the universe has an explanation for its existence. The explanation is a transcendent, personal being who is God. According to a philosopher (Kant, 2014), God exists. The reason being existence is not a predicate.
Furthermore, God’s energies provide creative nourishment for all beings and extend the healing power of grace. According to Palmas, we as human beings are not required to actively seek out these energies. Rather, these energies (which constitute the actual presence of God) tend to find each individual regardless of whether or not they are actively seeking them. As I spent extensive time pondering Palmas’ idea of divine experience through God’s energies rather than His essence, I found myself challenged by the ostensible abstractness and ambiguity of this teaching. Although I understand the core of Palmas’ argument, I struggle to accept his assertion that the energies of God do not have to be actively pursued.
The first main point argued by Dawkins is that the size and the complexity of the universe tempt us to think that there was a creator, a God. Science however, managed to emancipate us from explaining everything around us using the word God. Science works on answering question based on evidence. Religion uses faith to ignore the question and pushes it to God. He further argues that the only time faith comes into play is when there is no evidence.
In other words, Anselm stipulates that God must exist since we can’t think of something greater than God but Descartes says the main reason why God exists is because he is a perfect being. St. Anselm and Descartes arguments are without doubt the most important arguments to the existence of God. They formed the basis for further discussion both by those that agree to these schools of thought as well as those that saw the arguments as weak and decided to show why. Both philosophers agreed that the comprehension of the concept of God was sufficient for anyone to believe in the existence of God even though Anselm argument was skewed towards our inability to conceive a more powerful being while Descartes mainly concentrates on the perfect nature in
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