Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How religion impacts morality and ethics
How does religion influence moral behaviour
The effects of religion on society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
Just because there is not evidence does not mean that is evidence he does not exist. I do not believe that people believe in god, just because they do believe that god exist, but because it gives them something that others cannot. It brings people together and gives people hope in the worst of times, and it can fill voids in peoples lives that are rather impossible to fill. It also gives them a reason to live, and live moral ones at that. However, this is also a problem in the discussion of th...
... middle of paper ...
...uld be fair to judge someone, because they choose to believe in a greater force. However, while it is impossible to know if god or exist or not, I do believe that it is rational to believe in god based on the fact that it brings positive things to our lives. So, in the end, I believe we all must at least remain agnostic, and be open to different possibilities. It is likely that evidence will never surface that suggest god does exist, but what we must do is make a choice to believe or not.
Works Cited
Pojman, Louis P. "The Cosmological Argument for God's Existence and Objections." Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings. New York: Oxford UP, 2004. N. pag. Print.
Pojman, Louis P. "The Problem of Evil and the Rationality of Faith." Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings. New York: Oxford UP, 2004. N. pag. Print.
Then he goes on to conclude by saying that, “The lessons learned from observing people and their beliefs support the position that I have defended: rational people may rationally believe in God without evidence or argument” (Feinberg 142). In schools today, students grow up listening to lectures that are subjective and then later are tested on what the teacher thinks and believes. Whether or not the taught perspective is factual or not, it teaches students from a young age to just take what the teachers, adults, and any authority says as truth, as a way to respecting authority. In the same way that it is reasonable to believe respectable authority, it is rational to have belief in God without specific evidence because we are created with the inclination that a higher being exists and God has shown Himself to be true to every generation. Furthermore, God has placed in every human the inkling to believe what is right or wrong, so when it comes to deciding whether to act a certain way, we can rely on our gut feeling if it is a good action or not. It is a very common and suggested thing to trust one's gut feeling when making a decision, even though it does not require any evidence to see if it is actually the right decision to
In conclusion I am left pretty much in the same place as I have started. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God philosophically. For every philosopher who publishes his or her opinions on the subject, three more are there to tear it down. In the end I think it is best that man does not figure out the answer to this lifelong question. Some things are better left unanswered.
...nough to support the idea of God’s existence, I consider the debate to have no winner, because, the arguments of Dr. Dacey are also strong enough to prove his position. However, in these debates the double answer is not possible, because in reality the existence of God can be true of untrue, without anything in between. In my opinion, God exists, and I strongly believe in His existence. I consider the question “Does God Exist?” to be the issue of faith, and there cannot be true or false arguments, because all the people are willing to decide, whether they believe in existence of God, or not. It is the inner choice of everybody, and sooner or later we will all find out the truth.
However, despite this when their belief is challenged, “They are able to show that it is not blind and unthinking”. Atheists don’t believe that any form of a God exists; they believe that everything (the world and its inhabitants etc) just appeared. The atheistic view says: “there is no explanation”.
In conclusion, Descartes made an argument to prove God’s existence and seemed to be able to prove that he existed, but after a taking a closer look and revaluating his theories you see that he uses a lot of circular reasoning. It is really tough to believe any of what Descartes is saying. After reading his meditations you are left confused, mostly because you are trying to decipher what he is saying and you end up going around and around because of the circular reasoning. Even without the circular reasoning the argument just doesn’t make any sense, especially in today’s world, without any data. To be able to fathom a sound argument for the existence of God just sounds too preposterous to believe. To believe that God exists based of faith and religion is what people today and in Descartes time, as well, believed. To say that God exists because there must have been some superior creator that put this idea in my head is very far fetched. People don’t need to be told that God exists because most people already believe and most of them know that he does.
God is not a deceiver to me; God is good, so therefore what I perceive really does exist. God without existence is like a mountain without a valley. A valley does not exist if there is no mountain, and vice versa a mountain is not a mountain without a valley. We cannot believe or think of God without existence. We know the idea of God, and that idea inevitably contains his existence.
Reasoning like this, alone is not sufficient to prove the existence of God, but it provides us with firm ground to rationally approve and understand the existence of God. One must have faith, to truly acknowledge and believe in the existence of God because as God is perfect and we are not, we cannot see or know the true perfect with full confidence, unless God intervenes--"faith is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8).
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.
There are many theories to why a God might exist, but the Ontological argument tells us that a God is a necessary truth based on the self-contradictory or denying the existence of God. They use the proposition of the concept of God to argue the implied existence of God. This is to suppose that God is by definition the greatest thing imaginable and that to imagine something greater which can also exist is impossible. They use the general rule of positive and negative existential claims to try and prove the existence of God. they do this in a number of ways, with the classic version of the ontological argument being the most recognized, the reductio ad absurdum ("reduction of absurdity") of the ontological argument and the modal versions of the argument. It explains that nothing can exist in the imagination alone, it must also exist in reality to truly exist, and they have decided that there has to be such a being that exists in the imagination and in reality that noting greater can exist. I do not find this argument to be true in stating the fact that God must exist in reality, al...
Non-religious people would say that believing in God and higher authority is irrational and mainly because of the two reasons. One of them is lack of evidence and other one is evidence to the contrary. In other words, the belief in God is rational only when there is a sufficient evidence for the existance of God (Clark, n.d.). God’s existance is a certain type of claim and it requires approporiate evidence in order to support it (Corbett, 2012). Let’s say for instance, that someone wants to validate geographical claims. It would be very easy to validate them through using maps or small size globe. Or for example, validation of distance can be done by using different kinds of measurements. But how do you validate God’s existance? You cannot measure it, or use maps in this case. Does the Bible trully claims the exsistance of God? One of the epistemologic objections would be the question about all the evil in the world (Corbett, 2012). If the God exists, how come there is so much pain, struggle and suffering in the world? Why did some little baby, or any human in general deserve do die or suffer from illness? These are some of the stronges epistemologic objections that conflict with my view about religion and Christianity in
Another reason as to why God does not exist is because of the Catholic Church’s crusades. In the crusades, the church killed many people because they were not Christians, but Pagans. According to the Bible, God is meant to be omnibenevolent, which literally means all good. Those in the crusades have written and said that God told them to turn others into Christians or do what is necessary to eliminate the other religions. If God was really omnibenevolent, he would not have said this, ...
Throughout history, conflicts between faith and reason took the forms of religion and free thinking. In the times of the Old Regime, people like Copernicus and Galileo were often punished for having views that contradicted the beliefs of the church. The strict control of the church was severely weakened around the beginning of the nineteenth century when the Old Regime ended. As the church's control decreased, science and intellectual thinking seemed to advance. While the people in the world became more educated, the church worked harder to maintain its influential position in society and keep the Christian faith strong. In the mid-nineteenth century, the church's task to keep people's faith strong became much harder, due to theories published by free thinkers like Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, David Friedrich Strauss, and others. These men published controversial theories that hammered away at the foundation on which the Christian church was built. As the nineteenth century progressed, more doubts began to arise about the basic faiths of the Christian church.
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.
There are still individuals who are called Atheist or non-believer of God because they argue that God is not
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.