Genesis Glynn Final essay In many religions, there

GenesisPerezNovember21, 2017PHI2010ProfessorGlynnFinal essayIn many religions, there are anabundant amount of information revolving around God, and the word of God.

Amongthe arguments that gyrate around the overall existence of God, we acquire themeaning of claims that are made by different religions and philosophers. Thearguments that add onto the existence of god include the ontological argument,argument from design, as well as cosmological argument. The arguments that addto the non-existence of God are based on empirical and rational evidence.

Thereare a copious number of standards that can be engaged in evaluating theirqualities for the existence and non-existence of God. If one were to ask, how did humans discoverthe knowledge of whether God exists, and the guarantee they have to prove thatis it true, one can find the differences between revealed knowledge and our ownordinary knowledge. No matter the knowledge one holds, one could agree tocertain statements such as; that a square is composed of four equal sides, andthat Martin Luther king Jr was assassinated. A similar argument does notembrace religious information. If we as individuals cannot agree to theultimate basis, or fundamental truth, there is a least no tremendousdisagreement to what is concluded as plausible evidence. When one turns to areligious standpoint, like questioning the Bible, (which contains religiousinformation) this cannot be connected to historical or scientific question. Thosewho provide a basis for religious knowledge are based upon special events, orreasons that provide a foundation for religious principles.

Yet, the contentionof religion is that fundamental truths based upon religion are known solely byrevelation, faith or experiences. Since those foundations involve theconnection of experience and evidence of a being, philosophers examine thoseclaims regarding the existence or non-existence of God.   One argument that that has beenused to prove the existence of God would be the ontological argument. Theontological argument is a way of trying to prove a supreme being, implying thathe in fact must exist. No knowledge about the world is required to develop thatargument, this has been something many philosophers favor; Descartes being one.The overall concept of the ontological argument has no relation to our personalexperience, but in fact a concept or general idea of a superior being.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

The mosttraditional form of ontological arguments is previewed in the writing of St.Anselm, a famous medieval thinker. St. Anselm expressed that anyone whounderstood 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 lessperfect than if it actually existed. Then, it wouldn’t be as great as a beingwho actually existed, that would begin to contradict our definition of God as abeing who’s supposed to be all perfect.

Thus, God must exist. Philosopher Descartes, arguedthat if one can draw from their own thoughts that the idea of anything thatfollows, one is able to recognize clearly to concern it in reality. Descartesstated 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 lessidea of God, that is, of being formally perfect, than any figure or of anynumber (Popkin 166).

Descartes concluded that in preceding meditations may notbe true, and the overall existence of God in his mind is being at least ascertain as his truth regarding mathematics, only concerning numbers and shapes.Although, others may not consider Descartes’ connection to mathematics and theexistence of God to be perfectly evident, although it does in a sophistryaspect. Descartes was able to separate the existence of God from the essence,concluding as non-existent. In both the presentations of St. Anselm andDescartes, similar basic themes occur.

Both include the concept of God beingthe epitome of perfection, or being that no one can be equal or greater thanwhat can be conceived. This one element of perfection adds to the definition ofGod, meaning that he must in fact exist.  The concept of God includes that God is anexistent being.

Consequently, relying from the idea and definition of God we asindividuals can tell that he must exist solely on the definition itself. Forexample, think about the definition of a right triangle, the definitionconcludes that a right triangle must have the sum of its interior to be equalto 180 degrees, so therefore, we have to conclude that God exists based uponthe definition. So,based upon Descartes we have the idea of a superior perfect being, we then haveto conclude that a perfect being exists, and to Descartes God’s existence wasjust as obvious, logical, and self-evident as the simplest mathematical truths.Throughout our time, those whobelieved that it was possible to discover religious knowledge by naturalprocedures attempted to develop many different ways to prove the overallexistence of God.

This basically displayed that the most religious knowledgethere is a being that can be exposed by satisfactory arguments; one of thesearguments known as argument from design. Argument from design, rationales theexistence of God from an examination of information that we as individuals havegained about the universe. Theargument, exhibits orderliness and an apparent purpose. For example, everythingin the universe obeys to the laws of physics, and many things within it arecorrelated with one another in a way that appears purposeful. Majority of the arguments fromdesign stride to prove the existence of God from the latest verdicts inscience. The central claim of the argument from design, is that our studies ofnature reveal a set guideline and pattern in physical, chemical, and biologicalaspects that surround the world.

The orderliness of nature resembles designs ofhuman artifacts, homes, and goods that adjust to accomplish a purpose. (Popkin155). Thus, there must be an intelligent goddess or superior, who is the authoror cause of these effects that occur in our world, as well as the cause mustalso be of greater intelligence. There have been many criticisms toward theanalogy between the predictions that are made by people and nature. The worksof man and those of nature do not resemble each other, hence we as individualshave strong reason to suspect that they in fact have similar causes. In thecase of nature, we as people have no experience of the cause, but only theeffect. The natural effects that we endure do not resemble ones that areman-made, simply because we can be certain that similar kinds of casual factorsmust occur in both.

Therefore, human effects result from design, yet we do nothave experiences of natural effects and how they begin to rise. This line of argumentation is more compelling priorto the advent of naturalism leading for some to conclude that there is in fact a greaterintelligence at work. When establishing the existence ofa superior, or God there is the cosmological (or casual) argument.

Thecosmological argument is very similar to the argument of design based upon thefacts of our experience, and from what we in fact observe. We as individualsare aware of what we see that moves, changes. Although, in order for theseevents to occur there has to be either a cause in the sense of an event thatoccurred prior or a reason. We can either continue open-endedly that requiresno further explanation, because it is already explained; this is the ultimatecause 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 therein fact is no beginning input to the unexpected sequence, then there could beno second, third, etc. hence, there must be a first cause of evets, and this socalled first event is what is called and known to be God. Many philosopherssuch as Aristotle, St.

Thomas Aquinas, and many more have established themeaning that there must be a first cause in the history in the universe; suchas the big bang theory. Although, this has been opened to a wave ofcontroversy, the cosmological argument is regarded as conclusive evidence inthe existence of a superior being, or God. There were some criticisms of thecosmological argument being that we cannot prove the fundamental foundationthat every event must have a cause. If what is meant by a cause is somethingthat produces an outcome then, we as individuals cannot tell whether it isbecause of that particular event that has been produced by something (Popkin164). The succession of events that we consider to be causes and effectsrequires no ultimate beginning, because it can be conceived indeterminately.

Atheism, refers to the disbelief ofGod. If there are no valid proofs of the existence of God, there is a total ofthree different components that seem to be of possibility. First being theoutright denial that there is a superior being. Since, adequate rationalevidence cannot be found to create the idea that something exists, neithershows that it does or does not exist. An agnostic, who contends that there isnot enough or hard rational evidence to establish an existence of a superiorbeing. Ironically there is in fact a religious conclusion that promotes theinadequacy 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 uponrational or natural information but lead entirely but faith. The connection offideism is that religious knowledge is beyond the limits of a singleindividual’s rational understandings (Popkin 172).

There is a great amount of arguments for the non-existence of God which are deductiveand inductive reasoning.  Deductive arguments for the non-existence ofGod are disproof’s that claim there are logical problems with different assetsthat are essential to any one being worthy of the title “God.”  While Inductivearguments typically present empirical evidence that is engaged to argue thatGod’s existence is unreasonable. One of the main arguments that support tonon-existence of God would be the connection to the non-existence of SantaClaus.

Logically speaking, the existence of a well-known human and non-humansuffering is unsuited with an all-powerful, all good, and perfectbeing. There is a widespread non-belief and the lack of compellingevidence concluding that God does not exist.Throughout the many arguments toward proving theexistence and non-existence of God, I find the most compelling to be theargument of Design. This argument states that we as individuals live in auniverse that had to be designed, this presents a sense of orderliness andgives a sense of purpose.

Everything applies to the laws of physics sotherefore, they correlate to one another that is purposeful. William Paley argued, “just as the existence ofa watch indicates the presence of an intelligent mind, the existence of theuniverse and various phenomena within it indicates the presence of an evengreater intelligence, namely God”.  Ifind this very compelling because there is a sense of complexity and purposenot from the product of a designer, but rather the meticulous result of adaptationand range.All in all, there are a variety of arguments that can be engagedin evaluating their qualities, to deem if God exists or does not exist. Some believe that the existence of god can beestablished by the ontological argument, argument from design, and thecosmological argument as evidence, while others maintain that there can be norational evidence to prove God’s existence, then there are others who believethat the difficulties involved in the many proofs are because of the nature ofthe subject beyond our understandings.