Genesis Glynn Final essay In many religions, there

Genesis
Perez

November
21, 2017

PHI
2010

Professor
Glynn

Final essay

In many religions, there are an
abundant amount of information revolving around God, and the word of God. Among
the arguments that gyrate around the overall existence of God, we acquire the
meaning of claims that are made by different religions and philosophers. The
arguments that add onto the existence of god include the ontological argument,
argument from design, as well as cosmological argument. The arguments that add
to the non-existence of God are based on empirical and rational evidence. There
are a copious number of standards that can be engaged in evaluating their
qualities for the existence and non-existence of God.

 If one were to ask, how did humans discover
the knowledge of whether God exists, and the guarantee they have to prove that
is it true, one can find the differences between revealed knowledge and our own
ordinary knowledge. No matter the knowledge one holds, one could agree to
certain statements such as; that a square is composed of four equal sides, and
that Martin Luther king Jr was assassinated. A similar argument does not
embrace religious information. If we as individuals cannot agree to the
ultimate basis, or fundamental truth, there is a least no tremendous
disagreement to what is concluded as plausible evidence. When one turns to a
religious standpoint, like questioning the Bible, (which contains religious
information) this cannot be connected to historical or scientific question. Those
who provide a basis for religious knowledge are based upon special events, or
reasons that provide a foundation for religious principles. Yet, the contention
of religion is that fundamental truths based upon religion are known solely by
revelation, faith or experiences. Since those foundations involve the
connection of experience and evidence of a being, philosophers examine those
claims regarding the existence or non-existence of God.   

One argument that that has been
used to prove the existence of God would be the ontological argument. The
ontological argument is a way of trying to prove a supreme being, implying that
he in fact must exist. No knowledge about the world is required to develop that
argument, this has been something many philosophers favor; Descartes being one.
The overall concept of the ontological argument has no relation to our personal
experience, but in fact a concept or general idea of a superior being. The most
traditional form of ontological arguments is previewed in the writing of St.
Anselm, a famous medieval thinker. St. Anselm expressed that anyone who
understood what was meant by the term “God” or any “superior being” would see that,
that said entity must exist (Popkin 166). St.
Anselm conceived of God as a being who possesses perfection. So, if this being
“existed” merely as an idea in our minds, then it would be less
perfect than if it actually existed. Then, it wouldn’t be as great as a being
who actually existed, that would begin to contradict our definition of God as a
being who’s supposed to be all perfect. Thus, God must exist. Philosopher Descartes, argued
that if one can draw from their own thoughts that the idea of anything that
follows, one is able to recognize clearly to concern it in reality. Descartes
stated from the following argument, he could not draw the existence of God,
simply because it is certain for him that he does not find in himself, the less
idea of God, that is, of being formally perfect, than any figure or of any
number (Popkin 166). Descartes concluded that in preceding meditations may not
be true, and the overall existence of God in his mind is being at least as
certain as his truth regarding mathematics, only concerning numbers and shapes.
Although, others may not consider Descartes’ connection to mathematics and the
existence of God to be perfectly evident, although it does in a sophistry
aspect. Descartes was able to separate the existence of God from the essence,
concluding as non-existent. In both the presentations of St. Anselm and
Descartes, similar basic themes occur. Both include the concept of God being
the epitome of perfection, or being that no one can be equal or greater than
what can be conceived. This one element of perfection adds to the definition of
God, meaning that he must in fact exist.  The concept of God includes that God is an
existent being. Consequently, relying from the idea and definition of God we as
individuals can tell that he must exist solely on the definition itself. For
example, think about the definition of a right triangle, the definition
concludes that a right triangle must have the sum of its interior to be equal
to 180 degrees, so therefore, we have to conclude that God exists based upon
the definition. So,
based upon Descartes we have the idea of a superior perfect being, we then have
to conclude that a perfect being exists, and to Descartes God’s existence was
just as obvious, logical, and self-evident as the simplest mathematical truths.

Throughout our time, those who
believed that it was possible to discover religious knowledge by natural
procedures attempted to develop many different ways to prove the overall
existence of God. This basically displayed that the most religious knowledge
there is a being that can be exposed by satisfactory arguments; one of these
arguments known as argument from design. Argument from design, rationales the
existence of God from an examination of information that we as individuals have
gained about the universe. The
argument, exhibits orderliness and an apparent purpose. For example, everything
in the universe obeys to the laws of physics, and many things within it are
correlated with one another in a way that appears purposeful. Majority of the arguments from
design stride to prove the existence of God from the latest verdicts in
science. The central claim of the argument from design, is that our studies of
nature reveal a set guideline and pattern in physical, chemical, and biological
aspects that surround the world. The orderliness of nature resembles designs of
human artifacts, homes, and goods that adjust to accomplish a purpose. (Popkin
155). Thus, there must be an intelligent goddess or superior, who is the author
or cause of these effects that occur in our world, as well as the cause must
also be of greater intelligence. There have been many criticisms toward the
analogy between the predictions that are made by people and nature. The works
of man and those of nature do not resemble each other, hence we as individuals
have strong reason to suspect that they in fact have similar causes. In the
case of nature, we as people have no experience of the cause, but only the
effect. The natural effects that we endure do not resemble ones that are
man-made, simply because we can be certain that similar kinds of casual factors
must occur in both. Therefore, human effects result from design, yet we do not
have experiences of natural effects and how they begin to rise. This line of argumentation is more compelling prior
to the advent of naturalism leading for some to conclude that there is in fact a greater
intelligence at work.

When establishing the existence of
a superior, or God there is the cosmological (or casual) argument. The
cosmological argument is very similar to the argument of design based upon the
facts of our experience, and from what we in fact observe. We as individuals
are aware of what we see that moves, changes. Although, in order for these
events to occur there has to be either a cause in the sense of an event that
occurred prior or a reason. We can either continue open-endedly that requires
no further explanation, because it is already explained; this is the ultimate
cause that is meant by God. For example, if we were to take a moment and think,
if there were no actual beginning, then there would be no progression. If there
in fact is no beginning input to the unexpected sequence, then there could be
no second, third, etc. hence, there must be a first cause of evets, and this so
called first event is what is called and known to be God. Many philosophers
such as Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, and many more have established the
meaning that there must be a first cause in the history in the universe; such
as the big bang theory. Although, this has been opened to a wave of
controversy, the cosmological argument is regarded as conclusive evidence in
the existence of a superior being, or God. There were some criticisms of the
cosmological argument being that we cannot prove the fundamental foundation
that every event must have a cause. If what is meant by a cause is something
that produces an outcome then, we as individuals cannot tell whether it is
because of that particular event that has been produced by something (Popkin
164). The succession of events that we consider to be causes and effects
requires no ultimate beginning, because it can be conceived indeterminately.

Atheism, refers to the disbelief of
God. If there are no valid proofs of the existence of God, there is a total of
three different components that seem to be of possibility. First being the
outright denial that there is a superior being. Since, adequate rational
evidence cannot be found to create the idea that something exists, neither
shows that it does or does not exist. An agnostic, who contends that there is
not enough or hard rational evidence to establish an existence of a superior
being. Ironically there is in fact a religious conclusion that promotes the
inadequacy of the proof of the existence of God, this is known as fideism.
Fideism, is the view in which our religious knowledge is not based upon
rational or natural information but lead entirely but faith. The connection of
fideism is that religious knowledge is beyond the limits of a single
individual’s rational understandings (Popkin 172). There is a great amount of arguments for the non-existence of God which are deductive
and inductive reasoning.  Deductive arguments for the non-existence of
God are disproof’s that claim there are logical problems with different assets
that are essential to any one being worthy of the title “God.”  While Inductive
arguments typically present empirical evidence that is engaged to argue that
God’s existence is unreasonable. One of the main arguments that support to
non-existence of God would be the connection to the non-existence of Santa
Claus. Logically speaking, the existence of a well-known human and non-human
suffering is unsuited with an all-powerful, all good, and perfect
being. There is a widespread non-belief and the lack of compelling
evidence concluding that God does not exist.

Throughout the many arguments toward proving the
existence and non-existence of God, I find the most compelling to be the
argument of Design. This argument states that we as individuals live in a
universe that had to be designed, this presents a sense of orderliness and
gives a sense of purpose. Everything applies to the laws of physics so
therefore, they correlate to one another that is purposeful. William Paley argued, “just as the existence of
a watch indicates the presence of an intelligent mind, the existence of the
universe and various phenomena within it indicates the presence of an even
greater intelligence, namely God”.  I
find this very compelling because there is a sense of complexity and purpose
not from the product of a designer, but rather the meticulous result of adaptation
and range.

All in all, there are a variety of arguments that can be engaged
in evaluating their qualities, to deem if God exists or does not exist. Some believe that the existence of god can be
established by the ontological argument, argument from design, and the
cosmological argument as evidence, while others maintain that there can be no
rational evidence to prove God’s existence, then there are others who believe
that the difficulties involved in the many proofs are because of the nature of
the subject beyond our understandings.