Does God exist? This is an incredibly loaded question that has been the topic of discussion for many scientists, theologians, and philosophers for centuries. Some people try to use reason to explain the existence of God and others use faith. Faith and reason are two very different things. Faith is a belief in God based on a complete belief in God or for spiritual understanding. Reason is using rationale to explain causes and events. The two are very different because faith is very subjective and reason is objective. Because of the subjective nature of faith, it is very hard to explain anything with faith alone. However, some philosophers still make their arguments based on faith. Others use reason to explain the existence of God. However that …show more content…
They claim that God must exist because there is a definition of God. Another reason is that if everything has a cause, there must have been an initial cause or an initial starter that kickstarted the world. The person or thing that did this was God. This is the logic that philosophers such as Anselm, Thomas, and Paley give to prove the existence of God. Paley even gives an example of the watchmaker. He compares God to a watchmaker and the humans as watches. When you see a watch, you know that it did not occur naturally. When you see the watch, you know that there must have been an intelligent maker that had a design and a purpose for the watch. Paley uses the analogy of the watchmaker to argue that even if you have never seen a watchmaker, you know that every watch has a maker, and that maker was incredibly intelligent because the watch is so complex. Just as God is incredibly intelligent and even though you have never seen the creator of man, you know that there has to be a creator since we are so …show more content…
He claims that if God does exist, he is beyond our comprehension. He also claims that we cannot explain God through reason. To Pascal, faith is an act of will. Pascal, however, still thinks that you should believe in God. To explain why, he uses the idea of a wager. Faith is like a wager. There are four possible outcomes in this wager: you believe in God and he exists, you believe in God and he does not exist, You do not believe in God and he exists, and you do not believe in God and he does not exist. If you go with the first one, you are granted eternal life in heaven after you die. If the second is true, you waste a little time at church, but church promotes being a good person so it is not that bad. If you go with the third, you spend eternity in hell. If you go with the fourth, nothing happens. Pascal argues that the benefits in believing God far outweigh the negatives. A little time in church never hurt anybody, and by the time you find out he doesn't exist, you are dead so it doesn't matter. If you do not believe in God and he does exist, you will have wished you did, so you might as well go with it. The issue with Pascal’s argument is that he believes there are only those four options and you cannot withhold
The ability to compare the universe to a watch allows for familiarity, which is what I believe draws agreement and acknowledgement of his argument. It is thought that, as humans, we have at least one person in existence that is aware of how to put together a properly functioning watch, and we know that a watch needs to be put together intelligently. Given Paley’s reasoning he presents that the world is also intricately made which creates a parallel between a watch in the universe, giving individuals a sense of familiarity. As such, it naturally follows that there ought to be a universe maker, or God, who appears to be the only one capable of doing such a thing. Primarily, my concern is that the intelligent maker must be God; Paley merely assumes that the reader agrees and gives no further insight on why the creator must be God. Furthermore, he assumes the universe works without proof or any real knowledge which seems a rather fatal flaw. It is irresponsible to believe that the universe works the way we assume to fulfill our desire to explain the existence of God, similar to Mackie’s objection to the cosmological argument (Mackie 171). I do not believe Paley’s argument survives Hume’s objection due to the necessity of experience. He merely uses analogy to justify his claim; the only difference is that he has experience with a watch and none in regards to the universe. Again, he is
The teleological argument says a complex world such as ours could not exist without having an original designer such as God. Since this world is in existence, there must be a God. Pascal’s wager suggests that as humans we do not have the mental capacity to understand the existence of God and so believing in God is our safest bet. These arguments are also both referencing a specific God.
Faith is in the heart and as has been said, the heart has reason which reason cannot understand. So if it were a fight over finding rationality, it would not be fully supported because finding the complete and total reason for faith will never be found.
Whether god exists or not has been in discussion for thousands of years, and an important discussion. Whether it is rational to believe in god or not is another story, like believing in god itself, this topic has brought many discussions. It is one thing to discuss whether god is real or not and it is a complete other to discuss whether it is rational to believe in god or not. I believe that while there may not be any convincing evidence or arguments that God does exist, I do still believe that it is still rational to believe that god does exist. I think this because, believing in God is not simply just believing that he exists, but believing that it can bring good to our lives, we otherwise would not have. It teaches us to have a moral responsibility not only to others, but ourselves. It is obvious that many people do believe in god, but many of us choose to do so for reasons other than just believing in God. I do believe that just because there is no evidence, that does not mean God doesn’t exist. Like I said, God brings more to our lives than just a belief, but an ability to achieve a better one. And even if God is just an imaginary figure, he is an imaginary figure that brings hope and goodness to our lives, which we can never discount.
Of the two choices a person can make, there are four possible outcomes that could happen to a person as a result of the choice they made. The first possible outcome is that a person chooses to believe in God and God does exist. If this is true then the believer will suffer some harm in this life, but they will be rewarded with salvation in the afterlife. The second possible outcome is that a person chooses to believe in God and God does not exist. If this true then the believer will suffer some harm in this life and they will not be rewarded with anything when they die, but they will not be punished either.
forgiven, so there is no need to ‘force’ yourself to believe. This argument is far from proving the existence of God, it argues more for. the purpose of believing in him rather than whether he actually exists. The.. In conclusion, all the arguments bar one that have been covered have. been strongly criticised, questioning their validity.
Pascal originally proposed his idea in the Pensées, a collection of fragments of his work, primarily written to defend the Christian religion. Although Pascal clearly supports the existence of a supreme being, he is relatively unimpressed by attempted justifications of a God at the time, and he concedes that “we are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is” (Pascal 233). Instead, he formulates different arguments, which can be framed as the following:
Paley’s analogy came about from the concept of a stone. He encountered this stone during his walk and wondered how it came about (Paley, 1802, 196). He applies the idea that since a designer must have created this stone, this designer must have created other things just like how a watch is created by a watchmaker. His analogy for a watch and its watch maker becomes his key argument because he argues is that you cannot come to a conclusion that a stone was formed by a natural process, just like how when you look at a watch it has a watchmaker(Paley, 1802, 96). When comparing it back to a stone, Paley says someone must have created it. He says design requires a designer, the works of nature also requires a designer and that designer would be God. From this Paley creates his four arguments for God’s existence from analogies, which are argument from design is based on experience, argument from design assumes that we are different in kind, but same in degree, argument from design argues from mind/ thought to design, and argument from design...
The Design Argument For The Existence Of God This argument is also called the teleological argument, it argues that the universe did not come around by mere chance, but some one or something designed it. This thing was God. This argument is a prosteriori because the observation of the natural world is taken into the mind to conclude that there is a designer. The belief that the universe was designed by God was triggered by things like the four seasons; summer, spring, autumn and winter, that change through the year.
God can be defined as a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions (1). There are many people that do not believe in any religion. People who do not believe in a religion have no reason for believing in a God. People who do not believe in a God and argue against the existence of God are proving something that is completely false. There is a God for numerous reasons.
...roofs of God’s existence are basically the same in that they are all, essentially, examples of cause and effect. This cause and effect does not neccesarily prove there is a God but it does lead one to wonder what may be the highest cause, and for this there is no proof.
In this essay I discuss why there is proof that there is a supernatural being known as God, who has created everything we know and experience.
In many aspects of our lives, the use of faith as a basis for knowledge can be found. Whether it is faith in the advice of your teacher, faith in a God or faith in a scientific theory, it is present. But what is faith? A definition of faith in a theory of knowledge context is the confident belief or trust in a knowledge claim by a knower, without the knower having conclusive evidence. This is because if a knowledge claim is backed up by evidence, then we would use reason rather than faith as a basis for knowledge . If we define knowledge as ‘justified true belief’, it can be seen that faith, being without justification, can never fulfill this definition, and so cannot be used as a reliable basis for knowledge. However, the question arises, what if a certain knowledge claim lies outside of the realm of reason? What if a knowledge claim cannot be justified by empirical evidence and reasoning alone, such as a religious knowledge claim? It is then that faith allows the knower to decide what is knowledge and what is not, when something cannot be definitively proved through the use of evidence. When assessing faith as a basis for knowledge in the natural sciences, the fact arises that without faith in the research done before us, it is impossible to develop further knowledge on top of it. Yet at the same time, if we have unwavering faith in existing theories, they would never be challenged, and so our progress of knowledge in the natural sciences would come to a standstill. Although I intend to approach this essay in a balanced manner, this essay may be subject to a small degree of bias, due to my own non-religious viewpoint.
Fideism suggests that in the fight between faith and reason when searching for truth, faith prevails as a more effective means of arriving at certain peculiar truths. Fideism is the opinion that religious belief is contingent on faith or revelation, rather than reason, intellect or natural theology. In this vein, it is in direct contrast to the doctrine of Deism. More precisely it opposes evidentialism, the view that no belief should be entertained unless it is backed by evidence. As a result, it maintains that theology may include logical inconsistencies without apology.
Growing up I was raised in a religious household, so, of course, I’m a big believer in God and my faith. To me, God is the creator of all and I believe Judgment Day is going to come very soon.The definition of faith is the belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion. My faith and the reason for my faith goes hand in hand because it makes me know the truth and opens my eyes to this world. Also, I get clarity of why I’m in this world which is to make it a better place. But seeing the world as faith with reason or reason with faith has a few challenges and can make things a little bit difficult. Same goes for science and religion which butt heads a lot. Some may feel that the Big Bang Theory created