Does God Exist
The majority of the world’s population is religious (Blackburn 36). The fact that the majority of the general population believes in God has not stopped philosophers, scientists, theologians, and other scholars to question whether God exists or otherwise. This has been a widely controversial debate that has never been answered in a conclusive manner. There are various religions in the world, wherein each religion or society has its own distinct logical reasoning on whether God exists. It is these ideologies that make up the basic framework for their religious beliefs.
God’s existence is a subject of debate in the philosophy of religion. Philosophy of religion involves the philosophical analysis of the concepts and themes entailed in religious traditions and other aspects concerned with the significance of religion in the society (Taliaferro). Nevertheless, the general assumption is that all religious expressions, after the exclusion of superstitions that result from sin and ignorance, support the fact that a superior being exists. They believe that the superior being, God, created everything in the universe, including the universe itself. Generally, theism involves the belief that God exists, which entails a number of arguments that range from morality, epistemology, and the theory of value.
On the other hand, there are a number of counterarguments on the existence of God. The theories are based on polytheistic settings whereby they attempt to show that God does
not exist. The counterarguments on the existence of God depict that the matter on the existence of God is contradictory and inherently meaningless since there are no historical or scientific facts to support the claims that God does really exist. There is really no argument that has been able to solve this dilemma, and it is up to people to choose which side they want to believe in so long as it helps them to understand the reason behind the universe existing. In this light, the purpose of this paper is to explore various philosophical arguments on the existence of God as well as the counterarguments on the matter and to show that each argument holds ground in its own way.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
Cosmological arguments
According to this theory, God exists, and there is so much proof to support this. The Christian religion provides every evidence that God indeed does exist. Christians refer to God as omniscient; he knows everything; omnipotent, he is powerful and omnibenevolent; he exists everywhere. The concept of religion that attempts to defend and establish that God exists is known as apologetics. Apologetic philosophers accept that God exists through faith and point out that God is known fundamentally in the soul, heart, and spirit of mankind. Visalia and Vainio assert that the contentions for the existence of God are discussed as ostensive evidence, which is then demonstrated to be questionable (1). For instance, a contention from the obvious request and purposive nature of the universe will be censured in light of the fact that best-case scenario, the contention would set up there is a purposive, structuring insight busy working in the universe. This brings out the idea that there is a God who is supreme, omniscient, and eleemosynary, among other traits.
In any case, two remarks should be made: First, that “pitiful” end alone would be sufficient to upset a logical naturalist who wishes to preclude all such otherworldly knowledge. Second, not many thinkers today advance a solitary contention as proof.
Usually, a plan contention may be progressed nearby a contention from strict experience, and different contentions to be considered underneath. Pruss and Rasmussen (8) recommend for an exhaustive request, whereby various methods of philosophical reasoning—logical naturalism or belief in a higher power—progressed with total contentions, an entire scope of contemplations.
The existence of God can be justified through Saint Thomas Aquinas’ arguments. He provided five proofs that God exists. Two of them were cosmological arguments. He argued that “There can be no uncaused cause, so the universe could not have created itself, so there must be a first cause/ prime mover” (Appiah, 2003, p. 322). He calls this first cause God. This argument is based on the cause and effect chain that, in the very beginning, there must have existed a power that causes the world to exist. Aquinas also states that “An object that has no mind must have been created by another with a mind” (Sober, 2009, p. 53) I tend to agree with this because the universe has no mind of itself, how then could it have created all that is in it and in such perfect order? He also argues that the first cause has the highest degree of all properties. He exists everywhere. This is evidence of God’s existence because he is recognized in Italy, the USA, Africa, and everywhere. If he existed in one place, then he wouldn’t be known in another.
God’s existence is supported by the cosmological contention, which is based on the idea that there exists one amazing being that is self-existing or whose cause and kept being doesn’t rely upon some other being. Even if this argument may not clearly point out the religion of this God, for instance, the cosmological contention doesn’t justify if this Supreme Being is a Christian God or not, it still explains that the universe did not just come from nothing, rather it was someone’s work. The cosmological contention infers that there is a supreme being who has the exceptional might to bring about the presence of the universe. Best case scenario, it may not legitimize a full image of the God of religion, whereby a First Cause would show that God is powerful, however not really supreme. Furthermore, it would challenge differing naturalistic notions and give some logical explanation of the existence of God. The latter point is undifferentiated from the possibility that proof that there was some life on another planet would not build up that such life is astute. However, it increments—maybe just somewhat— the speculation that there is smart life on another planet (Draper and Schellenberg 29).
Nevertheless, the argument has been critiqued by various scholars over time. The first objection based on the inference that the universe does not needs clarification; it simply is (Morriston 235). Morriston (235) battles that since we determine the idea of cause from our perception of specific things, we can’t get some information about the reason for something like the universe that is much more intricate and multifaceted than merely our understanding. Swinburne (135) reiterates this assertion as he states that:
Uniqueness is relative to the description. Every physical object is unique under some description, yet all objects within the universe are characterized by certain properties, which are common to more than one object.… The objection fails to make any crucial distinction between the universe and other objects, so it fails in its attempt to prevent at the outset a rational inquiry into the issue of whether the universe has some origin outside itself. (134–35).
Nevertheless, it is clear that the objection does not really disprove that the cosmological argument, but rather points out the basic fact that it is not entirely correct.
Thomas’ arguments also receive critics that demonstrate that they do not entirely explain God’s existence. Critics have reasoned that if the world wasn’t the first cause, then what makes God the first cause? They also dispute the fact that there is one God; probably, there exist many gods too. Critics also argue that there is no being that can have a maximum level of senses; no one can be everywhere or all-knowing.
Another protest is that as opposed to clarifying the contingent universe, the cosmological contention presents an intricate entity. The intricacy of the argument is that the argument addresses an issue that we cannot make concrete philosophical or logical sense as human beings. The explanation of why God had to create the universe seems to be a complex record. Consequently, it posits the theist to undoubtedly concede that the reason why God created the universe is a contingent issue. These arguments all have a justifiable reason to believe the existence or the non-existence of God, and that is why none has been proved to be the correct argument yet.
Teleological Arguments.
This argument, it is own way, also proves that God does exist. It shows that the world was created by a very creative being, who somewhat managed to create things in the order that they are today. It focuses on the qualities of the universe that appear to mirror the plan or deliberateness of God. Some portion of the contention might be detailed as giving proof that the universe is the kind of reality that would be created by an astute being. The ideology of the argument illustrates that seeing it this way is much more sensible than skepticism or denying it. This theory supports cosmological contention that God indeed exists. This is because the two contentions argue that the world did not just appear; rather, it was as a result of an existing being (Taliaffero).
In the event that effective in contending for a smart, trans-universe cause, the teleological contention may give some motivation to believing that the First Cause of the cosmological contention (on the off chance that it is fruitful) is purposive, while the ontological contention (in the event that it has some probative power) may give some motivation to imagining that it bodes well to place a being that has Divine characteristics and essentially exists.
Moral Arguments
The world is governed by morals, and they try to explain the right and wrong. The moral arguments can also be used to support that God indeed exists. These arguments are based on the notion of morality or ethical life to the presence of God, who is commonly deemed as an ethical supreme being. These arguments could be used to justify the existence of morality in the first place. They show that God is the sole determinant of what is moral and immoral because he is an ethical supreme being, and therefore, requires the people he created to emulate him. Moral contentions are both significant and intriguing. They are intriguing on the grounds that assessing their sufficiency expects regard for all intents and purposes each significant philosophical issue managed in meta-ethics. They are significant in light of their noticeable quality in famous self-reproachful contentions for strict conviction (Stephen).
Numerous customary individuals view religion as somehow or another giving a premise or establishment of moral codes. This reality may appear to support strict contentions for ethical quality as opposed to moral contentions for strict conviction, yet in the event that somebody accepts that morality is somehow or another “goal” or “genuine,” and that this ethical reality requires clarification, moral contentions for God’s world normally present themselves. The clear association among ethical quality and religion appears to numerous individuals to help the case that ethical certainties require a strict establishment, or can best be clarified by God’s presence, or a few characteristics or activities of God.
An assortment of contentions has been built up that God is important to clarify human familiarity with moral truth. Richard Swinburne (218), for instance, contends that there is no “extraordinary likelihood that ethical mindfulness will happen in a Godless universe.” On Swinburne’s argument, moral certainties are either fundamental facts or unforeseen realities that are grounded in essential facts. For instance, it is clearly unforeseen that “It isn’t right to drop a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima,” since it is unexpected that there exists a city, for example, Hiroshima. In any case, one may hold that this suggestion is valid (expecting it is) as a result of some other truth, for example, “It isn’t right purposefully to slaughter blameless people,” which holds generally and is essentially valid. Swinburne doesn’t believe that contention from moral realities, all things considered, is amazing. In any case, the way that we people know about good realities is itself astonishing and requires clarification.
One objection to the moral argument is that there are no objective moral values. Some people opposed to the argument claim that morality is subjective; thus, the moral argument does not work. Furthermore, one objection to ethical subjectivism is that we cannot be mistaken in our moral judgments if subjectivism is true. Our personal opinion and attitudes would define morality. However, we are, at times, mistaken about moral judgments; hence, subjectivism is wrong.
COUNTERARGUMENTS ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
The arguments that support the existence of God have also received counterarguments, which are either deductive or inductive. These arguments can’t be refuted because they would make sense to an open-minded person. Deductive arguments against God’s existence are either narrow or multifaceted disproves that affirm that there are conceptual or logical issues with particular attributes that make an entity to be regarded as astute and worthy to be referred to as God.
Inductive contentions normally present experimental proof that is utilized to contend that God’s presence is unlikely or irrational. Disproves have commonly centered on coherent irregularities to be found either inside a single property or between numerous properties. Savants have battled to work out the subtleties of what it is transcendent, for example. Various endeavors to work out a record of supremacy have followed.
Problems of Evil
This argument against the existence of God is rooted in the notion that there should not be evil in the world since God is depicted to be omniscient, omnipotent, and completely altruistic. This argument poses the question, if God exists everywhere, then why is there so much evil in the world? The issue of evil in the world is the most broadly thought about belief in higher powers in both Western and Eastern thought structures. There are two general forms of the issue: the logical or deductive rendition, which affirms that the presence of any insidiousness whatsoever is contrary to God’s presence. Moreover, the probabilistic view states that given the amount and seriousness of evil that really exists, it is improbable that God exists (Murphy 97).
The deductive issue is, at present, less usually discussed on the grounds that many thinkers recognize that a morally decent being may permit or deliver some mischief under certain conditions if need be. The progressively extraordinary discussion concerns the probability that there is a totally decent undeniable the huge measure of abhorrence in the universe. Such evidential contentions from malevolence might be deductive or inductive contentions; however, they incorporate some endeavor to show that some well-established reality about abhorrence bears a negative proof connection to belief in a higher power regardless of whether it is legitimately incongruent with belief in higher powers.
Theistic reactions to the issue of evil in the world range from theodicy to defense. The theistic counterargument tries to set up the notion that God’s existence is still probable despite the presence of malice. Some have embraced the defensive strategy while contending that we existence of evil in the world does not discredit God’s existence since God abhors this evil. A theodicy is increasingly eager and is commonly part of a more extensive task, contending that it is sensible to accept that God exists based on the great just as the obvious insidiousness of the universe. In a theodicy, the task isn’t to represent every single shrewdness, however, to give an all-encompassing system inside which to comprehend at any rate generally how the malicious that happens is a piece of some general great—for example, the defeating of wickedness is itself an extraordinary decent.
Evil and the greater good
In the greater good argument against the existence of God, it is thought that evil can be perceived as either a way of showing the greater good of God. In this manner, in an adaptation regularly called the Free Will Defense, it is recommended that free animals who can think about one another and whose government assistance relies upon one another’s openly picked activity comprise of a good deed. In order to understand the good, there must be a true blue chance of people hurting one another. The unrestrained choice defense is utilized just to cover malicious that happens subsequently or immediate or roundabout, of human activity. Yet, it has been theoretically stretched out by those proposing a barrier instead of theodicy to cover different shades of malice, which may be realized by otherworldly operators other than God.
As indicated by the Greater Good case, detestable gives a chance to acknowledge extraordinary qualities, for example, the temperances of boldness and the quest for equity. Furthermore, it is widely underscored the benefit of a steady universe of common laws wherein creatures and people find out about the universe and grow autonomy, free of the sureness that God exists. A few skeptics accord an incentive to the benefit of living in a world.
without God, and these perspectives have been utilized by theists to back up the case that God may have had the motivation to make a universe in which Divine presence isn’t overwhelmingly clear to us.
Conclusion
Based on the literature presented herein, philosophers, scientists, or religious people have not been able to reach a conclusion on the existence of God. Theistic arguments are based on the idea that it is impossible that the universe came out of nowhere. The cosmological argument demonstrates the need for a first cause, whereby the first cause could be perceived as the Supreme Being. The teleological (design) argument demonstrates the need for a designer, whereby the show that the universe is the kind of reality that would be created by an astute being. Furthermore, the ideology of the design argument illustrates that seeing it this way is much more sensible than skepticism or denying it. The moral argument demonstrates the need for a moral lawgiver. On the other hand, counterarguments on the existence of God are based on the fact that if God really existed, then evil would not be happening in the world. The other counterargument argues we cannot make assumptions that there is God merely because we do good deeds. Since no theory can be proved to be more accurate than the other, it is, therefore, important that people respected each other’s beliefs and not judge each other for upholding them. This means that every human being is equal, and no religion is superior to the other. Until one theory proves to be more accurate than the other, it would be reasonable that we live based on what is fair and just, rather than basing our actions on whether God exists or not.
Works Cited
Appiah, K.A., 2003, Thinking It Through, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blackburn, Simon. Think A compelling introduction to philosophy. Oxford University Press, 1999.
Draper, Paul and J. L. Schellenberg (eds.), Renewing Philosophy of Religion: Exploratory Essays, 2017, Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198738909.001.0001
Morriston, Wess. “What if God Commanded Something Terrible? A Worry for Divine- command Meta-ethics.” Religious Studies, vol. 45, no. 3, 2009, pp. 249–267.
Pruss, Alexander R., and Rasmussen, Joshua L. Necessary Existence, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2018. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198746898.001.0001
Sober, E., 2009, Core Questions in Philosophy: A Text With Readings (5 edition), New Jersey, USA: Prentice-Hall Various authors. Holy Bible, King James Version, Cambridge: Cambridge.University Press
Stephen, Evans. “Moral Arguments for the Existence of God,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2018, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/moral- arguments-god
Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God, 2nd edition, 2004, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taliaferro, Charles, “Philosophy of Religion,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2019, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/philosophy-religion
Visalia, Aku, and Vainio, Olli-Pekka. “Philosophy of religion and the scientific turn,”
Palgrave Communications, vol. 4, no. 135, 2018, pp. 1-8