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 . 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 .
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.(2) The ontological argument is impressive to the average mind but to others its deception is clear. With words like perfect, necessary and existent that are built into its 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.
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 . 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 would automatically think of a watchmaker when stumbling upon a watch because we know that watches are made by watchmakers.(3)
Aquinas made me question my non-belief with his argument for . 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 ...