Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Proofs for God's existence
Proofs for God's existence
The natural law theory essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Proofs for God's existence
Religion and the existence of God is a topic that has been questioned, challenged, rebuked, ridiculed and researched for many years. Just speaking of it has caused specific banning’s in school and even physical abuse for those who dare to talk about it. With such a hot topic, one surely wonders if God does exist. For those that say he doesn’t, they want facts and evidence to back it up. For those who do believe, the facts speak for themselves through the Bible, nature itself and of course, man. But is proof really necessary? With all of the physical objects and facts that there are to support evidence of God and the Christian Religion, isn’t what is right in front of our eyes all we need? I will examine the issue of Gods existence, present all views possible on this very topic, argue my view and position on it and address any philosophical theories that support or challenge the issue.
There is an old quote that says, “Nothing is certain but death and taxes”. Uncertainty is a part of our lives as humans, especially when it comes to the future and things we cannot explain. Our existence alone remains uncertain as scientists, philosophers and average humans strive to find the meaning of life, of how we came to be and who made us. Our lives are led by faith in someone or something because we need that to hold on to and to move forward (Overman, 2010). We are all unique individuals, having our own perspectives on what we should have faith in. These perspectives are influenced by our families, our communities, our traditions, our education and our own personal experiences. This does not necessarily make our perspectives true nor does it make it false, but it is how we as people make the choices we do in our lifeti...
... middle of paper ...
... when discussing the existence of God. The argument of whether one exists is proof enough for me because without the ability to use our minds to think, reason and argue, these great minds that we were given by our creator whom he created in his own image; then how could we argue it to begin with. A great deist named Voltaire once said, “With great power comes great responsibility”. What a great power it must be to have created the universe and all that it contains. I cannot imagine having neither that kind of power nor the kind of responsibility it takes to maintain the power and all that comes out of it. While the comprehension of how massive that power is unimaginable, it is also amazingly overwhelming and with complete awe I hold for the only one who could support a responsibility of that magnitude. I know no other on this earth that could even come close to it.
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
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.
Does God exist? That is the question that so many scholars, peasants, governments, and individuals have been trying to answer from the beginning of human civilization to the present and beyond. Every group in the history of mankind, from Taiwan to Jamaica, from the top of Russia to the bottom of Chile, has said yes to a form of divinity. Their religions have ranged from one God to one million Gods to no God and these religions have defined culture, tradition, lifestyle, and the society of the place; they have ruled nations and defined nations, inspired nations and controlled nations. Not every person has been a believer but every culture has had a belief. Yet somehow, despite this vast evidence that there must be something or else everyone in the history of mankind is delusional, atheism has taken rise in the west. “Science” is the new salvation and human’s greatest belief in something grater is simply a mistake. Great atheists have arisen: Dawkins, Nagel, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett, just to name a few, have taken hold of America. No longer is religion the way; now religion, specifically Christianity, is the bane of mankind. So we shall take a look at their convincing ideas and twisted words, through the work of Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker in Answering the New Atheism, to examine the question: Does God exist?
... uses the lack of proof of Gods existence for God’s existence. This then essentially leads to a battle between science and religion on the idea of whether or not God can be proven to exist and whether that proof is essential to determine if science or religion has the right answer.
However, there is no researchers or method to either prove or disprove the existence of “God”. Descartes argues that the mind and soul cannot be measure in science; the mindless mechanistic “coincidences” is the direct results of God’s work. To conclude, the argument is all about faith and beliefs. There is no doubt that science contradicts religion, even some greatest scientists of the world have declared that there is some invisible power that we cannot explain through science. Yet, I believe that we should consider evidence that we have in order to examine the reality and “truth”. Our experiences of everyday life, the time that passed, the behaviors that we observe, were far more convincing than something that bases on a vague
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...
To begin, proof of God’s existence is seen in the group of cosmological arguments. The cosmological arguments are a set of arguments that demonstrate the existence of a sufficient reason or first cause of the existence of the cosmos, or the universe as a whole. There are three different types of cosmological arguments, the Kalam, Thomist and and Leibnizian cosmological arguments. Proponents of the cosmological argument include Plato, Aristotle, and John Locke. Contemporary defenders include William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne.
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.
The existence of god has been relentlessly debated with many strong arguments. This essay will primarily discuss the most prevalent arguments for and against the existence of a higher being. Although there are many strong arguments for both atheism and theism, ultimately the theist point of view is greater justified morally and logically.
The existence of God has been questioned since the beginning of time. Religions thrived on answering the unanswerable questions of the universe and people were able to find solace in the answers. As science has expanded and been able to answer these questions with natural, as opposed to supernatural answers, many people stopped looking to God and religion for the causes of things and started looking towards science. God was dead, according to many scientists and people of all professions. Many philosophers, however, have different conclusions.
Lucretius and Marcus Aurelius, have both similar and different views on the role that death plays in life and philosophy. They both believe our fear is due in some part to the uncertainty that surrounds the process of death. However, both philosophers have dissimilar approaches on why we shouldn’t fear the unknown concept of death. Drawing from these reasons and explanations, they arrive at the way this fear affects our lives and what we should do to change it.
Instinctually, humans know that there is a greater power in the universe. However, there are a few who doubt such instinct, citing that logically we cannot prove such an existence. St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, wrote of five proofs for the existence of God. The Summa Theologica deals with pure concepts; these proofs rely on the world of experience - what one can see around themselves. In these proofs, God will logically be proven to exist through reason, despite the refutes against them.
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.
The reader, like modern man, must not give into “the arrogant presumption of certitude or the debilitating despair of skepticism,” but instead must “live in uncertainty, poised, by the conditions of our humanity and of the world in which we live, between certitude and skepticism, between presumption and despair “(Collins 36).
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.