Does God Exist
The majority of the world's population is religious (Blackburn 36). The fact that the
majority of the general population believe 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
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 are contradictory, and inherently meaningless, since there are no historical
or scientific facts to support the claims that God does really exist. In this light, the purpose of
this paper is to explore various philosophical arguments on the existence of God. The
literature will comprise of theistic arguments on the existence of God as well as
counterarguments on the matter.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
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. Visala and Vainio
assert that the contentions for existence of God are discussed as ostensive evidences, which
are 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 misses the mark concerning 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 a 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
Cosmological Arguments. There are different variants of the cosmological arguments. Some
contend that the universe had an underlying reason outside it, a First Cause. Others contend
that the universe has a vital, continuing reason from moment to moment, regardless of
whether the universe had a fleeting inception. The two variants are not totally unrelated, for it
is conceivable both that the universe had a First Cause and that it has an interminable,
substantiate reason (Draper and Schellenberg 29).
The cosmological contention depends on the coherence of the thought of there being
in any event one amazing being which is self-existing or whose cause and kept being doesn't
rely upon some other being. This could be either the full scale need of incomparable pregreatness over every conceivable world utilized in renditions of the ontological contention, or
a progressively neighborhood, restricted thought of a being that is uncaused in the genuine
world. 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 on the existence of God. The later 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.
Nevertheless, the argument has been critiqued by various scholars over time. The first
objection based on the inference that the universe does not needs a clarification; it simply is
(Morriston 235). Morriston (235) battles that since we determine the id...