God Existence Essay, Research Paper

In my life on this planet I have come to question many things that many take on

as blind faith. We all know that someday we will ?physically? die, Yet, we

continuously deny the forces working inside ourselves which want to search out

the true outcome of what may or may not come after death. It?s far easier for

humanity to accept that they will go on to a safe haven and be forgiven for all,

rather than to question the existence of a super omnipotent being. Fortunately,

there are some of us who tend to question the why?s and how?s that come

before us. We question the creation of humanity and the religious teachings

received from our parents, our church and our society. This paper examines the

many rational arguments for and against the existence of God. It is based on the

views of some of the great philosophers and scientists of our world. I will show

that there is no sufficient proof or comprehensive arguments for the existence

of God. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS God generally refers to one supreme, holy,

personal being,. The divine unity of ultimate good-ness and of ultimate reality.

St. Anselm of Canterbury developed what we have learned to be the ontological

argument. He began his argument by saying that even a fool can grasp or

understand the concept of ?a being than of which nothing greater can be

conceived.? He continues to state that a fool would say that the concept of

this being?s existence is only in his mind and in the mind of others but not

in reality. However he also admits to the possibility of this being existing in

reality. Whatever is understood by the fool is argued that than which nothing is

greater can be conceived cannot solely exist in the mind but also in reality,

hence, God exists. This personally sounds like a salesperson’s pitch to confuse

and conquer for a sale. Gaunilo felt the same. He frequently debated with St.

Anselm on behalf of the fool. He stated that it was not possible to visualize

the concept of this perfect being because one can only imagine an image when one

has an idea of what that image is suppose to resemble. There is no idea behind

the image therefore the image itself can?t exist. St. Anselm?s argument in

my opinion is reduced to just a statement because it really has no foundation.

Kant also agrees with me by stating that the argument is simply based on words

and not reality. The ontological argument is impressive to the average mind but

to others it?s deception is clear. With words like perfect, necessary and

existent that are built into it?s definition, it seems impossible to be argued

with. Even if the theist could prove in some miraculous way this perfect

being?s existence, he still wouldn?t be able to link that ?being? to

being God. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS The argument for God?s existence from design

has also stirred controversy among philosophers and society. It is said that the

complex order and design of the universe is obviously the work of an intelligent

architect. In Psalm 19 it?s written ?The heavens declare the glory of God;

and the firmament showeth his work ?. Theists have used this well known

argument(teleological) for thousands of years as strong evidence for the

existence of God. William Paley continued the argument of Socrates, Plato, and

Aquinas. He said that if one found a watch in a field, one would automatically

conclude that it was made by a watchmaker because of its obvious design. The

complex design of the world also points to a grand designer. This is interesting

but he left out that people will automatically think of a watchmaker when

stumbling upon a watch because we know that watches are made by watchmakers.

Aquinas made me question my non-belief with his argument for the existence of

God. It is called the posterior approach. He had five ways of proving God?s

existence which were; argument from motion, efficient cause, possibility and

necessity, the gradation to be found in things and the governance of the world.

Of all these, his first I found most stimulating. This argument states that

nothing can move without being moved by another or an original mover. He

continues by stating, motion is nothing else than the reduction of something

from potentiality to actuality, but, nothing can be reduced from potentiality to

actuality except by something in a state of actuality. In conclusion, since the

relationship between motion and mover can?t go on to infinity, there must have

been a first mover for whom is God. Interesting and almost convincing but not

true. David Hume introduced the idea that the universe could have happened by

chance and not by design. Science has always been a stronger angle to any

argument. Given an infinite amount of matter in the universe, it is proven that

the probability of the atoms that make up this universe as we know it to be with

an infinite amount of time is almost a 100% certain to take place. Scientists

like Darwin claimed that random mutation and natural selection was responsible

for the complexities we observed in the animal kingdom. It?s also reasonable

to imagine the universe to be infinite in space and time with a never ending

series or ?Big Bangs? which created this present universe. David Hume stated

in his ?Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion? that there is no way to

logically link something unknown in the world with something known in the world.

This is just common sense to me. At best, the teleological argument can only

suggest the possibility of a grand architect and cannot provide evidence that

the universe was created. COSMOLOGICAL ARGUEMENTS Even if the universe is

randomly formed and there appears to be no design, the theist still believes

there is hope within the cosmological arguments of Plato. His argument is based

on the obvious. Every day we observe things moving. Whatever moves is either

moved by another or is self moved. If a thing is self moved it must be eternal.

In this argument for there being a first cause, this self mover is God. My

question is when the wind blows a hat off a person?s head, does that person

think God was its cause? No!. Many things move and with modern technology and

science there is almost an answer for every movement. Ignorance to what caused

the first movement should not be a reason to praise the unknown and label this

first cause as God. Hume brought up a valid argument for this concept. If Plato

and his likes can?t conceive the thought that things that movement don?t

necessarily have a mover and not all effects have causes, then they should

accept that God might have a cause like the universe supposedly has one. Plato

said that stopping the regress of causes at God is an arbitrary decision. Now, I

do have a problem with Hume?s arguments too. It is illogical for there to be

an infinite regress of causes, but, it is more acceptable than to think that

there must be a supreme and very powerful being that made all of this happen

without any proof. To go further, for example, in nature, scientists, time after

time have tried to predict tornadoes, their next movement and how they will

affect the area they hit. Years and years have passed and still they have come

to the conclusion that they are unpredictable. Kant said that we can never know

everything there is to know about everyday objects we see and touch and We are

limited by our senses and our limited intellect. We as humans don?t know very

much about the universe as is, so to think we can make definite predictions

about any particular cause and effect based on previous experience is senseless

because even that previous experience is vaguely known. Personally, I would like

to believe that there is a God. Unfortunately, it is painfully clear to me that

an existence based upon blind faith is no longer an acceptable tradition to

follow. Throughout my research, I had hoped to find some form of evidence in

order to maintain the path of faith in God instilled in me by my parents and

church. Unfortunately, such was not the case. It would have been nice if the

teleological, ontological, or cosmological argument could have linked the

observed world with a God beyond this world, but they could not. The

teleological argument formulated unfounded conclusions from analogies of

empirical observation and materialists provided alternatives that are logically

valid. The ontological argument failed because it was only a deceptive play of

words that could not extend into reality. The cosmological argument also failed

because it never logically reasoned the creation of the universe. There are many

great individuals who have spent a vast amount of time in studying the Bible.

Great minds like Socrates, Plato, Paley, Aristotle, Augustine, Anselm, Descartes

have made arguments for the existence of God. We must realize that individuals

like King James are in fact men, not Gods and the Bible is, in actuality, only a

book. To believe the contents of any book completely, in my opinion, is

devastating to ones well being, especially those with little to no proof to

defend its stories /statements. Hey???., like I said, that is my opinion.

P.S., HAPPY HOLIDAYS!