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 the existence of God. 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 the existence
of God. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS 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. The ontological argument is impressive to the average mind but
to others it’s deception is clear. With words like perfect, necessary and
existent that are built into it’s 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. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS 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 the
existence of God. 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 will automatically think of a watchmaker when
stumbling upon a watch because we know that watches are made by watchmakers.
Aquinas made me question my non-belief with his argument for the existence of
God. 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 happened by
chance and not by design. Science has always been a stronger angle to any
argument. Given an infinite amount of matter in the universe, it is proven that
the probability of the atoms that make up this universe as we know it to be with
an infinite amount of time is almost a 100% certain to take place. Scientists
like Darwin claimed that random mutation and natural selection was responsible
for the complexities we observed in the animal kingdom. It’s also reasonable
to imagine the universe to be infinite in space and time with a never ending
series or “Big Bangs” which created this present universe. David Hume stated
in his “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion” that there is no way to
logically link something unknown in the world with something known in the world.
This is just common sense to me. At best, the teleological argument can only
suggest the possibility of a grand architect and cannot provide evidence that
the universe was created. COSMOLOGICAL ARGUEMENTS Even if the universe is
randomly formed and there appears to be no design, the theist still believes
there is hope within the cosmological arguments of Plato. His argument is based
on the obvious. Every day we observe things moving. Whatever moves is either
moved by another or is self moved. If a thing is self moved it must be eternal.
In this argument for there being a first cause, this self mover is God. My
question is when the wind blows a hat off a person’s head, does that person
think God was its cause? No!. Many things move and with modern technology and
science there is almost an answer for every movement. Ignorance to what caused
the first movement should not be a reason to praise the unknown and label this
first cause as God. Hume brought up a valid argument for this concept. If Plato
and his likes can’t conceive the thought that things that movement don’t
necessarily have a mover and not all effects have causes, then they should
accept that God might have a cause like the universe supposedly has one. Plato
said that stopping the regress of causes at God is an arbitrary decision. Now, I
do have a problem with Hume’s arguments too. It is illogical for there to be
an infinite regress of causes, but, it is more acceptable than to think that
there must be a supreme and very powerful being that made all of this happen
without any proof. To go further, for example, in nature, scientists, time after
time have tried to predict tornadoes, their next movement and how they will
affect the area they hit. Years and years have passed and still they have come
to the conclusion that they are unpredictable. Kant said that we can never know
everything there is to know about everyday objects we see and touch and We are
limited by our senses and our limited intellect. We as humans don’t know very
much about the universe as is, so to think we can make definite predictions
about any particular cause and effect based on previous experience is senseless
because even that previous experience is vaguely known. Personally, I would like
to believe that there is a God. Unfortunately, it is painfully clear to me that
an existence based upon blind faith is no longer an acceptable tradition to
follow. Throughout my research, I had hoped to find some form of evidence in
order to maintain the path of faith in God instilled in me by my parents and
church. Unfortunately, such was not the case. It would have been nice if the
teleological, ontological, or cosmological argument could have linked the
observed world with a God beyond this world, but they could not. The
teleological argument formulated unfounded conclusions from analogies of
empirical observation and materialists provided alternatives that are logically
valid. The ontological argument failed because it was only a deceptive play of
words that could not extend into reality. The cosmological argument also failed
because it never logically reasoned the creation of the universe. There are many
great individuals who have spent a vast amount of time in studying the Bible.
Great minds like Socrates, Plato, Paley, Aristotle, Augustine, Anselm, Descartes
have made arguments for the existence of God. We must realize that individuals
like King James are in fact men, not Gods and the Bible is, in actuality, only a
book. To believe the contents of any book completely, in my opinion, is
devastating to ones well being, especially those with little to no proof to
defend its stories /statements. Hey………., like I said, that is my opinion.
P.S., HAPPY HOLIDAYS!