This is a tough question to answer because there are people that would say yes and people that would say no. I myself have never questioned the existence of god due to the fact that I feel like the proof of his existence is all around us. In this paper I will discuss the two sides of this debut and which side makes the most valid argument for my personal beliefs. When you ask someone why they believe in something most likely it is because they have facts or some type of evidence as to why they believe what they do. If I say my dog bites and show you my arm with bite marks then you are more likely to believe that my statement is true.
The same thoughts can be applied to the way some people believe and do not believe in god. Some people believe because they have faith in the bible and that something more powerful than any other force had to create all the living things on earth. Others believe that everything in that is on earth could have evolved through science and therefore none of the creations on earth are proof that god exist, these people are often referred to as atheist. When people think about an atheist they usually think that they worship the devil or are into some type of satanic worship, but this is not the case.
Simply put atheists just do not believe in god and they believe that science played a part in the creation of the world and the things on it. The issue is why do we need proof that god exist and what type of proof is needed to prove his existence? Many people, including Christians, wonder what proof is there that God exist. Is there really any concrete evidence to prove that an all-powerful creator exists? Or are we all being blinded by our faith and believing in something that may or may not be real, just so that we have hope that life is better after death. It is hard to imagine something that has always xisted, because as human all we know is life and death. To understand something that never began and will never end is hard to wrap our brains around that concept. If a person oppose the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence presented can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have seen ghost or spirits, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. There are photographs of ghost and spirits, personal interviews from people who have encountered these beings, and even special equipment that can pick up various activities from these beings.
Although this may be enough evidence for most people to some all this evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that ghost or spirits do not exist. Of course many have tried to prove God's existence with rational arguments. Aquinas, Abelard, Anselm, Pascal, and Paley are a few that have attempted this. These approaches are of limited helpfulness, for though we can approach God with our reason and detect Him in nature, he cannot be fully grasped in this way. More importantly, these logical proofs for God's existence miss the point.
What is the point? In my experience, most of those who doubt or deny God's existence do not do so because of firmly held philosophical convictions. They do so because of personal disappointment with God. Furthermore, I'm suggesting that many of those who now perceive themselves as doubting or denying God for philosophical reasons, got where they are because they became personally disillusioned with God sometime in the past. To answer the question, 'Does God Exist? ', a number of studies, articles, and research papers have been written.
Two arguments that best attempt to prove the existence of God are the ontological argument by St. Anselm, and the cosmological argument by St. Thomas Aquinas. The second out of the five arguments provided in the cosmological argument is based on experience and efficient cause. The efficient cause makes something happen, i. e. cause and effect, and this are the premises for his argument. Aquinas argues that nothing in this world can originate on its own, and must have a first cause to create an intermediate cause, to create an ultimate cause and effect.
Infinity makes it impossible to have a first efficient cause, but if there is no first cause, there would be no intermediate cause, and we would not exist. In the ontological argument, St Anselm provides an argument that is based on logic. In order to understand his argument you must first admit that, if there is a God, he is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. This is the premise for his argument. Without this premises his argument would fail. It must be agreed to, because it is a true statement. You do not have to believe in God in order to agree to these Premises.
In agreeing to these first premises, St Anselm forces you to admit that God does exist in reality because his premises support his conclusion. St. Anselm's Theory is that if God is that which nothing greater can be conceived, the idea of God must exist, if only in the mind. To exist in reality is greater than existing in the mind. Therefore God, being that which nothing greater can be conceived must exist in reality. All his premises support his conclusion, creating a valid and sound argument proving that God must exist. St.
Anselm’s first form of the argument is that God is “that than which none greater can be conceived”. This means that no one can think of anything that is greater than God. The second idea is, it is greater to exist than not to exist. Next, St. Anselm describes two kinds of existence: existence in the mind, and existence in real. Existence in the reality is very easy to believe, if you can touch, see, smell, hear, or taste something, in reality it exists. Existence in mind is harder to understand for some, because many people only believe what they see. Finally, St. Anselm defined God as the greatest being possible.
A being who fails to exist is less perfect than a being that exist. Therefore, God must exist, necessarily. If the greatest thing that we can conceive does not exist than we can still conceive the greatest thing that does exist, and that would be God. Philosophers, whether they are atheists, or believers have always been eager to discuss the existence of God. Some philosophers, such as St Anselm, and Rene Descartes, that formulated the ontological arguments attempt to prove God’s existence, believe that we have proven that God exist through our senses, logic, and experiences. Ontological” literally means talking about being and so in this case, that being is the existence or being of God. Ontological arguments all have ways to prove the existence of God. This argument is very important for religious believers, but has come under criticism from those who do not believe; because they say that it is flawed. Immanuel Kant feels that we will never have the answer to this question due to our human limitations, and reason. Every painting has a painter and for every book there is a writer. The same can be said about the creation of our world.
Our world could not have just created itself. Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic Dominican monk, more clearly proves this point with the First Cause argument. In this argument he says that there is a cause for everything but there cannot be an infinite amount of causes. There could only be a first, the intermediate, and then the last cause. This argument is very true and if God did not exist as the uncaused first cause then nothing else would make sense. The first and second premise is true because based on experience things are made or moved and things don’t just appear out of thin air.
The third premise is also true because at some point in time something had to be put in motion and there cannot just be an endless stream of causes. If God was taken out of the causes then we wouldn’t exist here today. Many still argue that neither one of these arguments prove Gods existence, because it is impossible for our reason to accept them. In Soren Kierkegaard’s argument, "Faith, not Logic is The Basis of Belief; he argues that it is impossible to prove Gods existence because it is beyond our reason as human beings to do so.
Kierkegaard classifies the word God under the word unknown. It is impossible for reason to know the unknown, so it is impossible to know, or prove God exists. Kierkegaard also claims that reason on its own does not attempt to prove God exists, he claims that it would be foolish to do so. It would be foolish to do so because reason is from existence, not towards it. Therefore if God does not exist, it would be impossible to prove he does, and if God does exist, because of our worldly limitations, it would be impossible to justify it as truth.
Kierkegaard claims that the only way to argue Gods existence would be to assume Gods existence before creating the argument. In having faith, you have knowledge on what God should be like in order to fill the Gap of the unknown with ideas about God. Having Faith would make reason understand God. Doubt exists in the believer and the non-believer because it is beyond our reason to determine the truth of God's existence. The Big Bang Theory generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a hot and dense condition at some time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.
My question is what put it there? Time could have not decided to one day say, “I think I’m going to create life in a thing called a universe. ” And magically particles come out of nowhere, more and more build up until it’s screaming hot, and then BANG! Time begins and so does everything as we know it today. Something had to place it there. Something had to have planned out the whole process. Everything is too complex and precise to not have been created by an intelligent being. From beginning to present time billions of people from all around the world have believed and been convinced in the existence of a god.
There are various forms of evidence displaying the belief of a god throughout history including biblical carvings, artistic creations, religious and political conflicts, traditions, architect and the creation of the bible itself. Could one say with any sense of confidence that the shared concept of the beliefs and actions of so many people living in different times with different realities be mistaken? It is extraordinary how despite the many different languages, customs, cultures, values, and lifestyles, the belief in God or a higher power is one of the few things that can unify all people.
This is strong evidence contributing to mine and many others faith in the existence of God. The existence of god is something that has puzzled millions of people around the world. It tears families apart, and brings some together. There are a lot of arguments supporting the existence of god, but just as many denying the fact that he or it exists. Agnosticism is something that many people go by because it allows your mind to explore and assist you in deciding whether or not a deity exists. You need to find the answers within yourself because only you can determine what truth and reality is.
Not all questions may be answered, but it will allow you to form a true and concise belief. You cannot depend on someone or something else to satisfy your questions. You only live once and must search for the knowledge you desire. Some people are destined to succeed, and others are determined to succeed. If you seek the truth, you will find it. Logan, I. (2007). Whatever Happened to Kant’s Ontological Argument?. Philosophy & Phenomenological Research, 74(2), 346-363. doi:10. 1111/j. 1933-1592. 2007. 00021. x McCarthy-Jones, S. (2011).
Seeing the unseen, hearing the unsaid: hallucinations, psychology and St Thomas Aquinas. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 14(4), 353-369. doi:10. 1080/13674671003745870 Mikolajczak, M. (2004). Is there proof for the existence of God?. National Catholic Reporter, 40(43), 5a Morse, D. R. (2011, October). God's Existence: Proof. Journal of Spirituality & Paranormal Studies. p. 181. Schumacher, L. (2011). THE LOST LEGACY OF ANSELM'S ARGUMENT: RE-THINKING THE PURPOSE OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. Modern Theology, 27(1), 87-101. doi:10. 1111/j. 1468-0025. 2010. 01656. x