“The Existence of God” People all over the world have different religions that believe in there is an almighty being. This means that they believe and worship the almighty being. However, there are people who have questioned whether such a being exists. The question has raised several arguments from different philosophers. Each of them came up with their different views about the controversy surrounding the question. God’s ‘existence’ is one of the widely discussed topics over the years. The question came to place due to some occurrences in society. Similarly, different scientific innovations have contributed to the continued debate on the question. God is believed to be ‘all-powerful’ because there is nothing that he cannot do. This means that he is able to perform anything that is beyond human capability. Such beliefs have raised several questions because they are not in line with science or logic in different ways. God’s existence contradicts with humanity, logic, and science. We were born worshiping almighty power and living up to its approval. It is an unquestioned belief that society, family, and the world has instilled in our system. This means that the society that we live in instills in us the belief of the existence of a supreme being. For a long time, people have had no choice but to believe without raising any questions. It started with polytheism where people believed the presence of several powerful beings (Pasquini 88). Later on, someone came up with the idea of the existence of only one God and the rest were disregarded. That was the beginning of religion and the belief of existence of a superior being compared to others. People started to worship the almighty power and show absolute obedience to it. This means t... ... middle of paper ... ...lways act according to their wish. In regard to this argument, it is clear that god cannot control human action. This is because if he could, he would have stopped them from committing evil. Therefore, it is absurd that despite being omnipotent god created beings that he cannot control (Perry 34). According to belief, it cannot be realistic because god has power over everything in the world. However, using the theory of free will, god cannot control human actions. This contradicts the belief that god has total control over everything. Therefore, it disregards god’s powerful nature. Drawing from the arguments, it is clear that god’s existence is not in line with humanity, logic, or science. This is because logic tends to disregard the arguments that are stipulated in religion. Similarly, science disapproves religious arguments on the existence of god.
Throughout the world, most people believe in some type of god or gods, and the majority of them understand God as all-good, all-knowing (omniscient), and all-powerful (omnipotent). However, there is a major objection to the latter belief: the “problem of evil” (P.O.E.) argument. According to this theory, God’s existence is unlikely, if not illogical, because a good, omniscient, and omnipotent being would not allow unnecessary suffering, of which there are enormous amounts.
The existence of God is quite controversial issue. God has different names in the world, and a lot of people, strongly believe in his existence. While, on the other hand, there are also people who don’t believe in his existence. In their discussion entitled “Does God Exist?” William Lane Craig, who is the supporter of the idea of existence of God, debates with Austin Dacey, who is an atheist, on the idea of existence of God. They provide the strong arguments and their debates are quite interesting, and innovative (not similar to those arguments, we usually read about in book). These are the fresh views on the question of existence and non-existence of God.
In the text “God?: A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist” Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and William Lane Craig, an atheist and a theist philosopher respectively, debate the existence of God. They present their informed opinions on controversial topics to prove God’s existence, such as arguing the problem of evil, which I will be focusing on. In this paper I will argue that the idea of God is possible, however, given then problem of evil, the idea of a traditional, monotheistic God is not. When I refer to a traditional, mono-theistic God, I mean the characteristics of God depicted in the mono-theistic religions of today, Christianity, Islam and Judaism. This will be shown through exploration of the problem of evil as presented in the text,
The existence of God has sparked debate for centuries and the argument has split into two separate sides: believers and nonbelievers. On one hand, one might question whether it has been scientifically proven that a higher, supreme power exists. On the other hand, just because its existence has not been proven, at least according to some circles, does it naturally follow that a supreme power does not exist? After all, many scientific concepts that used to ‘not exist’, are very much part of our current reality, such as bacteria and the concept of atoms. However, even in the very process of comparing the two sides, one is doubting, extrapolating that either could be true.
Blackburn, a British academic philosopher believes that the existence of evil strongly suggests that there does not exist a god who is all good, all knowing and all powerful, I agree with Blackburn’s beliefs, that having negativity present causes there to be a close assurance that there is not an existent all positive and sain god. Blackburn begins to question the coexistence of evil while having an AAA god. An AAA god is known to be an all good, all knowing and all powerful god. A god that does, nor causes any harm to occur, one that knows exactly when everything will happen, and one that has all the power to prevent any and every positive or negative thing that occurs. These similar thoughts were the ones that roamed around through Blackburn’s
The problem of evil is a big topic in today’s society and will continue to be for forever. The problem is that so many bad things happen in the world that Gods existence is debatable and if he is real, it is questionable that he is as powerful as the bible portrays him to be. In this case, we ask the question, how can such a good and powerful God not prevent evil in the world? The argument at hand is that if a perfect God exists, there would be no evil in the world and since evil exists, there is no God. In this paper, I will examine both sides to the problem. I will discuss views on why God is in existence and allows evil, as well as views on why God is not in existence based on the fact that there is evil in the world. After that I will take my stance on the issue and justify why I think that way.
Religion and science have always been in direct competition with one another. The ultimate goal of science is to prove the inexistence of God with facts, while the existence in God is simply based on belief and faith. While 95% of the people living on Earth believe in a superior being of some sort, some might say that religion clouds the minds of otherwise logical individuals and makes it impossible for them to pursue the truth of the Universe. Thus, the debate on which view is the right one continues on, while somewhere in the middle stand religious followers who are also scientists.
In conclusion, it is possible for science and religion to overlap. Although Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial claims that creationism doesn’t conflict with evolution, it doesn’t hold with a religion that takes the biblical stories literally. Moreover, I defended my thesis, there is some overlap between science and religion and these overlaps cause conflict that make it necessary to reject either science or religion, by using Dawkins’ and Plantinga’s arguments. I said earlier that I agree with Dawkins that both science and religion provide explanation, consolation, and uplift to society. However, there is only conflict when science and religion attempt to explain human existence. Lastly, I use Plantinga’s argument for exclusivists to show that such conflict means that science and religion are not compatible. It demands a rejection t either science or religion.
Through studies, “Most arguments for the existence of God, such as; the Teleological Argument, the cosmological Argument, and The Moral argument, are from the ancient world. The Ontological argument comes from medieval times. By the moral argument has modern interest, emanating from works of Immanuel Kant”. (489) All fighting for their meaning to exist.
In this paper, I will argue that God exists because nothing can be its own cause. Chains of causes and effects occur, but in order for a chain to occur, there must be a first cause. God is the first cause, therefore God exists. Throughout this paper, I will talk about God as an ultimate being but I will not relate to religion. Whether you relate to Allah, Krishna, Jesus, etc. I will only focus on proving the existence of God.
The concept of God can be a difficult one to grasp especially in today's world - a world in which anyone that believes in God is trying to define exactly what God is. To even attempt to grasp such a concept, one must first recognize his own beliefs in respect to the following questions: Is God our creator? Is God omnipotent (all-powerful) or omniscient (all-knowing) or both? Does God care? Is God with us? Does God interfere with life on earth? These questions should be asked and carefully answered if one should truly wish to identify his specific beliefs in God's existence and persistence.
Throughout history, many philosophers have tackled the issue surrounding our knowledge of God. In recent centuries, more specific, sensitive and radical questions have been put forth that have challenged the common understanding of God inevitably causing a great disturbance in the fields of philosophy and religion. Among these questions is a very essential question dealing with God and the problems of evil. This question argues God’s status as both omnibenevolent and omnipotent.
The question on the existence of an omnipotent God has been subject to debate by various philosophers over time, among them being John Hick and J.L. Mickie. One point of contention has been whether it was possible to have an omnipotent deity and at the same time have evil existing in the world.
Since the beginning of time people have always felt the need to adhere to a higher power. Some have viewed it as a source of endearment, survival and control over people and or something that was forced upon them. There are many different views on what a higher power should be and the things that it should do for its followers. And in every religion it has a different belief of that. For stance in Christianity they believe that if they pray to God, follow his Ten Commandments, live a sin free life and fight the temptations of the devil, then their God will basically grant them a wish,
Over the last two centuries, the world has experienced a dramatic acceleration in the development of technology, more so than any other time in the past. With the inception of the industrial revolution and the advent of all sorts of globalization, all living things have felt the change. Clearly, there is no doubt that there would be no technological advancement without the constant the development of science in prior years. One, however is led to wonder, were past civilizations incapable of creating the same philosophical conclusions about the existence of God as we are now? One cannot answer this question by first providing proofs of the current understanding of God, however it seems that empirically, there has been a lack of evidence for the existence of such a being because people have only claimed to have experienced a relationship with such a being. If the existence of God cannot be proven through empirical evidence, only signs and the effects of such a being can prove its existence. Clearly, society has defined its sources of right and wrong through the development of the morals of previous civilizations.